REPORT 


OF THE 




vi 


r'l' 




INTO THE 


CONDUCT 



OF THE 

Justices and Constables 

OF THE 


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

1S73. 


- *0* - 

V 

WASHINGTON : 

REPUBLICAN PRINTING IIOUSE. 

1874. 




REPORT 

\ 


OF THE 



INTO THE 

CONDUCT 


OF THE 


Justices ‘and Constables 


OF THE 


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


1873. 




> > 
) * > 


WASHINGTON : 

REPUBLICAN PRINTING nOUSE. 

1874. 




■TK 

,A4 

i vn* 


^*4 i4w**tv**4 

3 jyjo 





:r,jepokt 


OF THE 

P 

Committee of the House of Delegates, 


UPON THE 

CONDUCT OF DISTRICT JUSTICES AND CON¬ 
STABLES. 


To the Governor of the District of Columbia. 

Sir : The following resolution of the House of Dele¬ 
gates of the District of Columbia was passed June 25, 
1873: 

Resolved , That a special committee of live members of 
the House he, and the same is hereby, authorized to be 
appointed by the Speaker, whose duty is shall be to in¬ 
quire fully into the mode in which the business of magis¬ 
trates and constables is conducted, and generally to inves¬ 
tigate the manner in which the local magistrates and 
constables perform their duties, including the manner of 
serving papers, entering up judgments where credits and 
indorsements have been regularly made ; issuing execu¬ 
tions; ordering levies where exemptions are claimed ; 
method of executing indemnity bonds in such cases; as¬ 
certain the legal costs and fees in all cases, and how they 
compare -with those exacted; and any and all other informa¬ 
tion on the subject which will enable the law-making 
power to remedy existing evils; and said committee shall 
have power to send for persons and papers, and to employ 
a clerk, and to sit after the close of the present session, 
and to report to the Governor the result of their labors 
for transmission to the House at the next session. 

Messrs. James G. Long, chairman; E. P. Berry, W. E. 
Vermillion, S. W. Herbert and 0. 8. B. Wall, were named 




IV 


by the Speaker as the committee under it, which begs 
leave respectfully to report: 

That it held a preliminary meeting in Legislative 
hall on the first day of July, 1873, and organized by the 
selection of James G. Long as permanent chairman, and 
the appointment of 1ST. Davidson as clerk. The commit¬ 
tee also ordered an advertisement to be inserted in the 
daily papers, stating that it would hold its sittings for the 
purpose of taking testimony, &c., from and after the four¬ 
teenth day of July, in the hall of the House of Delegates. 
From that time until late in September, the committee 
were diligently engaged in taking the testimony which 
accompanies this report, and in the examination of the 
books and records of the several justices, and such other 
documentary evidence as was accessible, and seemed to 
have a bearing upon the subjects named in the resolution 
and referred to them. 

The committee found much difficulty at first in ascer- 
taming what laws were really in force in the District of 
Columbia. 


REVISED CODES. 

Several collections were found, entitled “Revised Codes” 
of the District, but inquiry disclosed the fact that neither 
Quid’s, Webb’s, or Ingersoll’s digests had ever been so ap¬ 
proved as to receive the effect and force of law. Each of 
these, and perhaps some other codifications, have been 
made by authority of Congress or the corporate or District 
governments, but have been thus far “labor lost” on ac¬ 
count of the failure of the proper authorities to approve 
of those labors. The latest revised code made in pursu¬ 
ance of the authority of the District Legislature, has been 
examined and approved by the United States attorney, 
and the judges of the Supreme Court of the District, and 
now only awaits the favorable action of the District Leg- 


V 


islature and of Congress to remedy most of the evils found 
to exist and flourish under the present system. 

EXTRA SESSION. 

In this connection it may not be improper for this com¬ 
mittee to suggest to the Executive the propriety of call¬ 
ing an extraordinary session of the District Legislature 
for the sole and especial purpose of amending and passing 
upon this “revised code,” and referring the same to Con¬ 
gress for approval at its approaching session. The expense 
of such a session would be only a trifle beyond a few days 
per diem of the members. The work is one very necessary 
to be done, and is of a character that is almost impossible 
to do or get done at a regular session. The three read¬ 
ings alone of some seven hundred pages of laws is a labor 
of several days, but is a point upon which the organic act 
is imperative. 

The experience of the past shows that it is idle to 
expect those readings to be had at a regular session, 
where there are a multiplicity of interests, both public and 
private, always pressing for consideration. A session of 
three weeks would probably dispose of the code, at an ex¬ 
pense of less than $5,000. 

MODE OF TRANSACTING BUSINESS. 

A careiul examination of the testimony herewith sub¬ 
mitted shows the urgent necessity of a reorganization of 
the peace commission and the constabulary force attached 
to the same, and the prescription of a code of laws and 
rules of practice for the government of justices of the 
peace and constables. Under the present system the 
interests of the poorer classes are entirely at the mercy of 
a set of unscrupulous men who appear to combine together 
under the name and guise of law officers, to despoil the 

\ 


VI 


poor debtor of his wages, not always for the benefit of 
his creditors, but for the purpose of transferring them to 
their own pockets in the shape of exorbitant costs and 
fees. 

This committee found that there was an entire lack of 
uniformity in the rules of practice and in the charges for 
costs and fees observed by the several justices, and also 
that very many of them were deplorably ignorant of their 
real legal powers and jurisdictions. 

Many cases were developed of unoffieer-like conduct, 
rough and uncivil treatment of men and women on the 
part of officers whose chief duties were to conserve the 
peace and good morals. Reference upon this head is 
made to pages 1, 3, 7, 10, 12, 13,17,19, 33, 36, 37, 39, 45, 
66, 69, 74, 90, 128, 133 and 136 of the testimony. 

PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES. 

The ignorance and incompetency and unbecoming 
conduct was manifested in different ways: First, by 
carelessness in the making and issuing of papers, the en¬ 
try of cases upon the dockets without iully specifying 
the nature of the cases and the amounts claimed, or the 
subtance of the testimony of the several witnesses upon 
both sides; failing to make the deduction of payments 
on account in making up the judgments; and the charg¬ 
ing up the bills of cost and adding the same to the 
executions. 

It appears that the constables, who are appointed by 
the Supreme Court, as provided by law, have been in the 
habit of directing and controlling these matters pretty 
much in their own way. 

It is recommended that the personation of officers by 
ex-officers or other persons be prohibited, under severe 
penalties. 

By reference to pages 33, 47, 49, 51, 87 and 89 of the 


Vll 


testimony, it will be seen that flagrant instances this of 
character have occurred. 

CO-PARTNERSHIP FOR COLLECTING. 

A favorite course has been for a certain justice to co¬ 
operate with a certain constable, work for each others 
interests and divide gains. The committee found several 
of their business cards printed in regular firm style, soli¬ 
citing the collecting business of merchants and others. 
The constable obtains the claims from the creditor for 
collection and stipulates for a liberal commission on what 
he “makes.” This act, by constituting the constable an 
interested contingent owner of the claim, infringes the 
spirit if not the letter of the law. In cases where the 
two officers are partners, the infraction of law is clear, and 
should be visited with severe penalties. When suit is en¬ 
tered one partner prosecutes and the other renders judg¬ 
ment. The debtor stands no chance. 

In one instance there proves to be a sort of ring, com¬ 
posed of father, son, son-in-law, and two or three others, all 
of whom work to play into each other’s hands. Ho part¬ 
nership was proven by legal evidence, but the fact was 
morally certain, in several cases, that the justices and their 
attendant constables were connected together by interest, 
so as to form a sort of conspiracy against the effects in the 
custody of the debtor. See pages 96, 97, 99,100, 103,116, 
129, of testimony. 

HOW JURIES ARE SELECTED. 

If a debtor demands a jury trial, these same parties 
select the jury and frequently have been known to post 
juryman beforehand and agree with them as to which way 
they should decide. There is one instance of record where 
one of the jurymen was sworn as a witness, gave his tes- 


Vlll 


* 

timony to the jury, of which he was a part, and then 
assisted in making up the verdict. It is needless to add 
that judgment is invariably for the plaintiff. See page 
122 of testimony. 


ENTERING UP JUDGMENTS. 

In entering judgment the practice of some has been to 
enter it for the full amount of the face of the claim, re¬ 
gardless of payments made on account, (see page 20.) 
Sometimes it is found convenient to have the judgment 
large, as authorizing or justifying the seizure of a greater 
amount of property than would be otherwise legal. Hav¬ 
ing secured possession of the goods a settlement is pressed. 
If the claim is neither paid or secured the property is sold 
without advertisement except upon the constable’s bulletin 
board. Such sales are estimated to net less than twenty 
per cent, of the intrinsic value of the articles disposed of, 
the purchasers usually being dealers in second-hand 
goods. The property is knocked off so readily to this 
class, whenever the bid is sufficiently high to cover the 
debt and costs,that it is reasonably suspected that there is 
an interested understanding between the selling constable 
and the dealer. 


STRATEGIC CONSTABLES. 

Some of these constables have systematic plans for 
“compelling people to pay their honest debts,” as they fa¬ 
cetiously term their strategy. They first carefully ascer¬ 
tain what property the debtor has in his custody. They 
then visit the different tradesmen with whom he has been 
dealing, and arrange for the collection of their accounts 
for a liberal commission, say from twenty to fifty per 
cent. Having secured a good batch of these, one is put 
into a judgment, execution issued, and a levy made upon 


IX 


the most valuable property visible. It may be a piano, 
a sewing machine, a horse and cart or wagon, necessary 
to and constantly used for the maintenance of the family, 
and therefore exempt under act of Congress. 

When asked by the committee why they siezed exempt 
goods, these constables replied tnat they were indemni¬ 
fied by the plaintiff; but upon inquiry it was found that 
such indemnity was rarely if ever of a legal character, 
there being no evidence of its existence except the word 
of the constables. Ho legal bond had been given and 
filed. The evidence shows that when the officers were in¬ 
formed by the women of the debtor’s family that certain 
goods were exempt, they would invariably reply that it 
made no difference to them, as they were indemnified, 
and if they were entitled to the goods they could get 
them by writ of replevin. 

References as to violation of exemption acts, pages 20, 
21, 30, 31, 32, 33, 48, 51, 89, 113, 114, 115, 120, 121, 127, 
128, 129, 130,131, 132. 


THIS WRIT OF REPLEVIN 

was formerly beyond the jurisdiction of justices, but was 
conferred upon them by the Legislative Assembly of 1871, 
to the amount of one hundred dollars or under. Under 
this act it has been the custom of justices and constables 
to make the writ cost from six to twelve dollars, which 
amount would, in many instances, be more than a poor 
debtor could advance, and therefore goods legally exempt 
would be sacrificed without a contest for title. 

STRATEGY CONTINUED. 

After the sale of the property or its release by super¬ 
sedeas from the first levy, the balance of proceeds, or the 
property itself as the case may be, is usually attached by 


. X 

I 

the constable for the satisfaction of a second claim, and 
so on, till it is all exhausted. It is very seldom that any¬ 
thing is returned to the poor debtor, and the cases are 
also frequent that no returns are made to the creditor. 
Costs of sundry attachments and counter-attachments 
passing from one constable’s office to the other, at five 
dollars each, soon eat up the proceeds if the holder can¬ 
not find some brother constable who has a judgment 
against his creditor, in which case he notifies him that he 
has a certain sum in his hands to his client's credit that he 
may attach and “ make,” if he will do the “ square 
thing” about it. 

HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. 

The act of Congress, approved February 5, 1867, ex¬ 
empts from seizure and sale for debt all wearing apparel, 
household furniture not exceeding three hundred dollars; 
three months fuel, tools of trade, two hundred dollars 
w r orth of stock, family pictures, one horse, mule or yoke 
of oxen with cart, wagon, dray, harness, &c., family libra¬ 
ry, implements of a professional man or artist; and no 
deed of trust or chattel mortgage shall be valid against the 
same, unless signed by the wife of the debtor. The law 
of 1869, also protects the separate property of married 
women from seizure and sale for the debts of her husband, 
these acts being designed to protect the innocent families 
of* unfortunate, dissolute or improvident persons from be¬ 
ing reduced to absolute want by the operation of the laws 
for the collection of debt. 

REPLEVIN AND ATTACHMENT. 

During the first session of the Legislative Assembly, 
additions were made to section 5, chap. 34, approved Au¬ 
gust 16, 1871, conferring upon all justices of the peace, in 


XI 


eases where the amount is one hundred dollars or less, to 
issue and try writs of replevin for the recovery of property, 
and of attachment and interrogatories for the purpose of 
garnisheeing the wages of the poor debtor. The effect of 
these provisions is practically to nullify the benefits ex¬ 
pected to be conferred by the married women’s protection 
and homestead exemption acts referred to above. 

The act conferring this jurisdiction upon justices of the 
peace is silent upon the subject of fees, and the justices 
and constables immediately assumed to charge what 
seemed to them good for these writs, varying from six to 
twelve dollars. And this appears to have been done in 
defiance of the schedule of fees and costs prescribed by the 
Supreme Court according to law, under the pretence that 
the attachments referred to in that schedule were of dif¬ 
ferent character. 


THE GARNISHEE. 

The garnisheeing of a poor man’s wages, to secure the 
payment of a debt of three dollars or less, carries with it 
costs to the amount of five to seven dollars, as may be 
seen by the testimony. While the exemption law pro¬ 
tects what is in the poor debtor’s house, this attachment 
is an instrument by which designing men may lay violent 
hands upon his entire week’s wages for the purpose of 
satisfying a claim of two or three dollars, and deprives 
him from replenishing his larder. This committee is 
unanimous in the recommendation of the repeal of these 
acts, or such modification of them as will insure uniform¬ 
ity of operation upon all citizens. For instance, the 
wages of Government employees are not subject to legal 
attachment or garnishee, while those of the private ser¬ 
vant or laborer who works for a smaller stipend are liable 
to be absorbed chiefly by the attendant costs. Should it 
not be deemed wise to repeal the jurisdiction the commit 


Xll 


tee would earnestly recommend a restriction of costs to a 
reasonable amount. 

Lists of Justices and Constables in commission August 
1, 1878, with schedule of legal costs and fees chargeable 
by them at that date will be found upon pages 136, 139 
and 142. 


SNAP JUDGMENTS. 

Many instances of unjust or “snap” judgments have 
been complained of, the most of which would have been 
avoided by the careful process of serving papers by copy. 
The law should be amended so as to compel copy service. 
Now, constables refuse to give copies, and the result is, 
that there is a misunderstanding, whether designedly or 
otherwise, between the officer and the defendant and 
witness whom he subpoenaes, as to the time set for the 
hearing, and the defendant frequently arrives j ust in time 
to hear that he is mulcted by default. He has no proof 
to sustain his allegation as to the hour named for the 
hearing by the officer who served the summons, while the 
oath of the constable and the docket of the justice alike 
attest his error. If copy service of papers were compelled, 
no such errors could occur without leaving the means of 
rectification. An amendment of the law in this respect 
is earnestly recommended. 

COSTS AND EEES. 

The testimony shows an almost entire disregard by con¬ 
stables of the legal observance of the schedule of costs and 
fees prescribed by the Supreme Court of the District. 
The fees are prescribed by the same authority that ap¬ 
points constables, approves their bonds, and has the power 
to remove them; but it is not made the duty of any one offi¬ 
cial to look after the delinquents ; and as the process of 


Xlll 


breaking an officer of the court is a disagreeable one, and 
expensive withal, and the prejudices and surroundings are 
in favor of the party complained of, the task may well be 
considered distateful, and one not very likely to be under¬ 
taken voluntarily. It seems that it would be wise to 
change the appointing power from the court to the Exe¬ 
cutive, leaving the supervision of practice, schedule of fees, 
and cause and power of removal with the court. 

For references as to exorbitant costs and fees charged 
by constables, see pages 15, 18, 19, 20, 29, 36, 56, 57, 58, 
65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 80,86, 87, 88, 89,102,103, 110, 111’ 
113,117, 132, of the testimony. 

Upon page 60 will be found a case of a constable who 
makes a convenience of his office to aid his business as 
house agent. He rents houses and can dispossess his own 
delinquent tenants, and turn an honest penny at the same 
time. Cases of failure to make returns of money collected 
will be found on pages 22, 27, 28, 96, 99, 104. 

NUMBER OF JUSTICES AND CONSTABLES. 

The number of justices now allowed by law for the 
District of Columbia is fifty, and of constables an equal 
number. This committee is of the'opinion that the num¬ 
ber is entirely too large. If it was restricted to one of 
each for each Council district, with, say two or three extra 
ones at central points, the offices would be more remuner¬ 
ative, and would command a better class of talent than 
now seeks the positions. The incumbents of these places 
should be sober, dignified, and urbane gentlemen, with suf¬ 
ficient knowledge of the English language to draw and 
execute papers properly. The evidence of the Clerk 
of the Police Court exhibits a fearful lack of such 
qualifications on the part of some of the present justices. 
(See pages 133 and 135.) 


XIV 


GENERAL REMARKS. 

The Committee have listened to numerous verbal com¬ 
plaints which had no relevancy to the matters referred to 
it, and which are therefore not embodied in the printed 
testimony. It has also been the recipient of divers anony¬ 
mous communications, of a character that would have 
been effective testimony if they could have been utilized. 
A large mass of evidence has been excluded by the reluc¬ 
tance of suffering victims to appear and make a public 
acknowledgment of the embarrassed condition of their 
afairs.. Several cases have come privately to the knowl¬ 
edge of the Committee, of collusion between justices and 
constables amounting to copartnerships and conspiracies, 
where the proof could not be made in a legal form, al¬ 
though the evidence was morally convincing. The same 
remarks will apply to purchase of accounts by constables 
and justices, who thus make their offices the channel of a 
brokerage business in bad debts. Such ownership of ac¬ 
counts, by these officers, should be prohibited by legal 
enactments, with severe penalties. Incumbents of these 
offices seem to think that the office is bound to afford a 
support to themselves and families, and as they are more 
numerous than the legitimate demand requires, a strong 
temptation is presented to increase their emoluments by 
speculations. It would seem, therefore, that the evil may 
be remedied by the reduction of force, recommended 
above. 

Persons who are so unfortunate as to be obliged to 
transact business with them are entitled to humane and 
civil treatment. As a rule, persons who neglect to pay 
small debts do so from necessity and misfortune rather 
than from choice. In such difficulties they are entitled 
to all kindness from ministers of the law in the per¬ 
formance of their unpleasant functions. The decision of 


XV 


the magistrate should be impartial and its enforce¬ 
ment by the constable as mild and judicious as the cir¬ 
cumstances will permit. To insure these results it is nec¬ 
essary that the incumbents should be possessed of some 
native delicacy. More especially is this desirable in the 
National Capital, where strangers and sojourners make a 
large portion of our population. They are liable through 
disappointments in obtaining employment or through the 
laxity of the Government in the adjustment of claims, to 
become involved in debt or other difficulties which de¬ 
mand more sympathy than persecution. While they are 
amenable to law, there is no justification for its harsh or 
cruel administration. 

The design of laws for the collection of debts is the 
award of impartial justice and equity between debtor 
and creditor at the least possible expense. This commit¬ 
tee respectfully submits that the impression made by this 
inquiry is that they are used in this District chiefiy for 
the benefit of those ministers of the law who have been 
selected to enforce them. 

Believing that the adoption of the revised code now be¬ 
fore the Legislature for its action, with such amendments 
as have been suggested, and the attachment of severe pen¬ 
alties for the infringement of rules of practice and extor¬ 
tion of illegal fees, will remedy most of the evils exposed 
in the accompanying testimony, this committee refrain 
from the submission of any drafts of acts amendatory of 
the statutes at present in force. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

JAS. G. LONG, Chairman, 

E. P. BERRY, 

W. E. VERMILLION, 

S. W. HERBERT, 

0. S. B. WALL. 

Washington, November , 1873. 









THE TESTIMONY. 



Testimony of William Smith. 

William Smith, No. 314 Ninth street, sworn, says.: 
About the first week in March last—the 13th, I think— 
I called on Justice A. E. L. Keese, to receive funds 
which he had collected for the firm (Emmart, Dunbar & 
Co.) of which I atn a member. He had collected thirty- 
seven dollars and a half for our firm on the 26th of March, 
1872, one year previous; I had called on him some thirty 
or forty times in the preceding year. He had told me 
repeatedly that he would pay me the next day; that he 

had not his books there—’this was in his office—or, that 

, • 

he was about to try a case, and would pay me next day. 
I became disgusted with his promises and took Daniel 
Cahill with me on this occasion, my attorney, to try and 
settle the matter. I asked in the politest manner I knew 
how, if he was ready*to settle the matter with me then; 

he said “vou damned son-of-a-bitch I have settled with 

%/ 

you.” 1 told him that he had never paid me a dollar in 
his life. I then said to Mr. Cahill, “let us go.” It was a 
cold day, and I had on my overcoat and my hands stuck 
down my pockets, and Mr. Cahill and I had got near to the 
office door to go out when he (Justice Keese) struck me 
from behind and knocked me down; he raised a chair 
to strike me again while I was down, but lawyer Cahill 
prevented him. As I was arising from the floor, young 
Keese (a son of the Justice) came in from the street, and 
seeing his father attempting to hit me with the chair, he 
struck me a heavy blow with his fist in the right eye. 
He wore a heavy seal ring on his finger, which cut a 
hole near the eye, which bled copiously for six flours. 




9 


I went to'G-ilman’s and had it dressed. He then issued 
a warrant for my arrest for contempt of Court, which 
was served upon me within live minutes, but the officer 
(Burns) refused to execute the order when he saw the con¬ 
dition I was in. He reported the case to Major Richards 
at my request, who in turn reported it to District Attor¬ 
neys Fisher and Cook, and asked instructions. They im¬ 
mediately advised Major Richards not to execute the 
order of Justice Keese. I then immediately procured a 
warrant for the arrest of Keese, father and son, for assault 
and battery. They were brought before Judge Snell, 
who fined them twenty dollars each. 

WILLIAM SMITH. 

Sworn and subscribed to before me this 15th day of 
July, 1873. 

JAMES G. LORD, 
Chairman Legislative Committee. 


Testimony of Daniel E* Cahill. 

Daniel E. Cahill sworn, says: I am aged twenty-six 
years, and a lawyer by profession. On the 13th of March 
last I was attorney for Mr. William Smith. In that 
capacity, on or about that time, I accompanied him to the 
office of Justice A. E. L. Keese, for the purpose of acting 
as his attorney in a case then pending before Justice 
Keese, in which Smith was defendant. I filed with Jus¬ 
tice Keese the necessary affidavit required by act of Con¬ 
gress for the removal of cases from the Court of one 
Justice to that of another. The object was to move the 
pending case in which Smith was defendant from the 
court of Justice Keese to the next nearest magistrate. 
After filing the affidavit, some controversy arose between 
Smith and Keese relative to some debt which Smith 



alleged was due him from Keese. Keese said the monev 
was paid. Smith answered, I think, that he had called 
on Keese some eleven times, and if he now said that the 
debt was paid, he lied, or words to that effect. My recol¬ 
lection now is that Keese called Smith a son-of-a-bitch, 
and about the same time struck him with his fist. A 
scuffle ensued between them, and while it was going on 
young Keese, who had been standing just outside the 
door of the office, rushed in and struck Smith one or two 
blows in the face, cutting him very severely and blacking 
both eyes. Young Keese wore a .heavy seal ring on his 
right hand, and I think the severe cut on Smith’s nose 
was made by the ring. I have some recollection of an 
attempt made to use a chair on Smith while he was down, 
and I believe I prevented it by putting my foot upon the 
round of the chair. After Smith had left the office, Jus¬ 
tice Keese issued a commitment against Smith for con- 

KI 

tempt of Court, and going across the street placed it in 
the hands of a member of the Metropolitan police force 
named Burns, and ordered him to take Smith to jail. 
The officer refused to serve the commitment. The same 
evening I advised Smith to swear out a warrant against 
Keese and his son for assault and battery. He did so 
and the case come up before the police court. After the 
hearing of the evidence on both sides, they (Keese and 
his son) were fined twenty dollars each. An appeal was 
noted, but I understand it was subsequently withdrawn, 
and both parties paid their fines. 

The case ruled away on affidavit by Keese was subse¬ 
quently tried.before Justice Klopfer. On the trial there 
appeared little or no ground for the action, and judgment 
was rendered in favor of the defendant Smith. It turned 
out on the trial the writ was issued by Justice Keese 
without costs being paid in advance. There is an action 
now pending in the Supreme Court of the District, brought 


4 


by Mr. Harrington and myself as attorneys for Smith, in 
which we claim ten thousand dollars damages for the 
assault and battery before mentioned. 

D. E. CAHILL. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me, July 15, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG. 

Chairman. 


Testimony of Sidney McFarland. 

Sidney McFarland sworn, says: That sometime since 
he was indebted to F. A. Boswell in the sum of one hun¬ 
dred dollars; that he paid him on account of said debt 
twenty-five dollars, leaving a balance of seventy-five dol¬ 
lars due said Boswell, for which the latter warranted this 
deponent about the month of May last. Deponent vis¬ 
ited the plaintiff, Boswell, and told him he would confess 
judgment for the amount, and would liquidate the debt 
as rapidly as he could out of his pay as market master 
at the Northern market. Boswell agreed, in the presence 
of Perry Carson, to stop the suit, and did send a note to 
the constable (one Thomas) to stop proceedings. Depo¬ 
nent heard nothing more from the matter till about the 
11th of June, 1873, when Constable Maryman came to 
him and said that he held an execution against him for 
ninety-five dollars at the suit of F. A. Boswell. Depo¬ 
nent told him that he had arranged that matter with 
Mr. Boswell, who had agreed to stop all proceedings in 
said suit, and he, this deponent, could have nothing to do 
with him in the matter. Maryman said if this depo¬ 
nent would bring a note to that effect from Boswell, it 
would be all right. Deponent then went to the office of 
F. A. Boswell and received the following paper: 

Washington, D. C., June 13, 1873. 

Received of Sidney McFarland, the sum of ten dollars ($10) on ac¬ 
count due F. A. Boswell, balance duo ('$65) payable in monthly prom is- 





T* 

0 


# 


sory notes at ten per cent, interest per annum. The said ten dollars 
mentioned above was paid May 31, 1873. 

(Signed) F. A> BOSWELL, 

per A. M. Boswell . 

On the 15th of June, Maryman came to my house and 
demanded that I should pay his costs of five per centum 
on the amount of the execution, or he would levy on my 
furniture. I presented to him the above settlement, and 
told him that I had settled with Mr. Boswell. He re¬ 
plied that it was no settlement at all ; that the young- 
man had made a mistake, and he (Maryman) would hold 
the execution over this deponent until he had received 
his costs. This deponent then agreed to go the next day 
and see Boswell, which he did—but on the way met 
Maryman on the corner of Seventh street and Penn¬ 
sylvania avenue, who appeared to be on the watch for me. 
We then went together to Boswell’s office, where I 
offered to pay him what the law allowed him, and which 
I understood to be one dollar and seventy-five cents. 
This he refused to take, and said he would have his five 
per cent, for collecting, or he would hold the execution 
over me and make his levy. Hot wishing any further 
trouble with him, I told him to draw me a receipt for 
what the law allowed him, and he wrote as follows : 

Washington, D. C., June 16, 1873. 

Received of F. A. Boswell five dollars and five cents costs and 
commission in a case in his favor against S. McFarland. 

(Signed) H. A. MARYMAN. 

Whereon I paid the money and Mr. Boswell wrote the 
following across the back of the receipt: 

Received of Sidney McFarland fees as within charged for constable, 
June 16, 1873. 

(Signed) F. A. BOSWELL. 

/ 

And further this deponent saith not. 

Sidney McFarland. 


6 




July 21, 1873. Upon re-examination, Sidney McFar¬ 
land further deposes: That the name of the justice who 
gave judgment in the above case of Boswell vs. McFar¬ 
land is Simon Joseph. Said justice informed this de¬ 
ponent, on the 17th instant, that Constable Mary man 
had not up to that date made any return of said exe¬ 
cution or judgment to him, the said Joseph. 

Sidney McFarland. 


Sworn and subscribed to before me this 21st day ot 
July, 1873. 


JAS. G. LONG, 

Chairman Committee House of Delegates. 


Testimony of William Williams. 

William Williams, 1214 Fifth street northwest, sworn, 
says: I am a watchman in the United States Treasury, 
where I have been employed during the last five years. 
On the 26th day of September, 1871, this deponent exe¬ 
cuted a policy of fire insurance with A. E. L. Iveese, as 
agent of the Firemen’s Fund Fire Insurance Company of 
California, for six hundred dollars, and renewed the same 
on the 26th of September, 1872, paying the premiums to 
Keese, seven dollars on the first year and six on the second 
year. On the morning of the 28th of November, 1872, 
while I was on duty at the Treasury, my house at Union- 
town, D. C., burned, with all its contents, my family 
barely escaping with their lives. About eight o’clock of 
that morning, on my way home, I was first informed of the 
fire by Henry Kuhns. About twelve o’clock on the same 
day I informed Mr. Keese of my loss on the street, when 
he told me to call at his office the next day, and he would 
attend to the matter. I called upon him accordingly the 
next day, being Friday, 29tli of November, and stated to 
him verbally the account of the fire and my loss. He told 



me to make an affidavit of the facts. Not being able to 
write, from defective sight, I told him to prepare it, and 
I would execute it. lie said he did not want it to appear 
in his handwriting, but that it' I would get some one else 
to write it, he would not charge me anything for the ac¬ 
knowledgment. He told me also to bring with me one 
or two witnesses who had seen the lire. I had the state¬ 
ment prepared, and called at the office of Justice Keese 
the next day, in company of one Thomas Hally, of Union- 
town, who saw the lire. I then qualified to my statement 
belore Squire Keese, but Hally’s statement not being pre¬ 
pared, and Keese being unwilling to write it out for me, 
his affidavit was not made out till the following Mondav. 
On the previous day, when I called at the office of Justice 
Keese, he asked me for my policy, and locked it up in his 
drawer, to which I objected, saying that I had kept it 
safely so far, and thought I was still the best custodian of 
it. He said that he could take better care of it than I 
could, and refused to return it to me, but said he would 
take care of it for me. On Monday, December 1st, 1873, 
Mr. Thomas Hally and his brother-in-law both made affi¬ 
davit of my loss, as did also Dr. Arthur Christie, my 
family physician, all having been eye-witnesses of the fire. 
Keese then asked me whether I wanted the house rebuilt 
or the money on the policy. I replied that I would rather 
have the money, as my family was in a destitute condi¬ 
tion, and I must replenish their clothing and supplies. 
He said, “all right; you shall have it in a very short 
time, now.” I asked him if he was satisfied with those 
affidavits. He said, “yes; he did not require them for 
himself, as he was satisfied with my statement, but that 
the company might want them.” On the next day I 
called at the office of Justice Keese, where I found the Jus¬ 
tice, his son, Charles Keese, and a Mr. Hubbard. I asked 
Keese if any one had been there to garnishee my insurance 


money, as I had heard a rumor that such course 
would be pursued by a party who held a deed of trust 
on the property tor payment of money due by install¬ 
ments, the first of which, of twenty-five dollars, would 
not fall due till January, 1873. He said the insurance 
money could not be held for that. As I was about leav¬ 
ing, Mr.Hubbard.asked me if I would take five hundred 
and fifty dollars for my claim on the policy, as he and 
Iveese had been talking about it before I came in. I. told 
him that I would, for I needed the money. Justice Iveese 
then wrote a paper, which lie represented to me to be a 
receipt for five hundred and fifty dollars in full for the 
settlement of the policy. I signed the paper, which I was 
unable to read myself on account of my defective sight, 
and he gave me a check on the bank of’Fant, Washington 
& Co. for five hundred and fifty dollars, which I immedi¬ 
ately presented to the bank, where payment was refused. 
The teller said Iveese had not so much money there; but 
that if I would bring his check for fifty dollars, he would 
cash it. I then returned to Iveese and asked him for a 
check for fifty dollars for immediate use, telling him what 
had transpired at the bank. This he refused to do; but told 
me to keep the check for five hundred and fifty dollars a 
few days, and he would cash it for me. I made constant 
efforts to obtain the money from Keese, through the in¬ 
tervention of my friends, without success. Meanwhile 
Keese represented to me that an agent of the lire insurance 
company had been here and ascertained that my house did 
not cost over three hundred dollars, and that I must put 
in affidavits to show the cost of the buildings. This I 
did. I then went to the bank in company with my at¬ 
torney, Mr. Gflassie, about the tenth or twelfth of De¬ 
cember, I think,*and presented the f check, with the same 
result as formerly. We then went to the office of Justice 
Keese and demanded the money on the check, which was 


9 


ret used. Glassie then demanded the return of the policy 
in exchange for the check. Keese said he had sent the 
policy to New York. He then demanded a receipt for the 
policy in exchange for the check, which demand was fi¬ 
nally complied with. I then wrote to the New York 
office of the company to send an honest agent here to 
settle my policy, as I could get nothing from Keese. A 
few days later an agent named Wyatt appeared here and 
examined into the matter of the loss by fire, and then 
asked me for my policy. I told him it was in New York 
He replied that it had never been received there. We 
went together to Keese’s office, where Wyatt demanded 
the policy in the name of the company, for which the 
receipt had been given. After some hesitation, Keese 
produced the policy from the lower drawer of his desk. 
As he handed it to Wyatt a paper fell from the inside of 
it to the floor, which Keese hastily picked up, and was 
about to destroy apparently, when Wyatt also demanded 
it in the name of the Company, and after some altercar 
tion obtained it, Keese objecting that it was no concern 
of his, being simply a little bogus matter between him 
and Williams. The paper proved to be the receipt that 
I had signed, and which Wyatt read, as a clear assignment 
of all my right and title and claim in the policy of insur¬ 
ance. I then presented to Wyatt my receipt for the 
policy, in exchange for which he gave me back my policy. 
Wyatt then forbade Keese from doing any further busi¬ 
ness in the name of the company as its agent, and told 
him that if he was in Williams’ case he would prosecute 
him (Keese) for felony. Mr. Wyatt then accompanied 
me to the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court (Mr. 
MeWs) where in a few moments he settled my policy and 
gave me a sight draft on New York for the money; which 
draft was duly honored. 

9 


WILLIAM WILLIAMS, 


10 


Sworn and subscribed before this 17th day of July, 
1873. 


JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Lloyd W. Emmart. 

Lloyd W. Emmart, contractor, 1519 Twelfth street 
northwest, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he 
is one of the firm known under the style of Emmart, 
Dunbar & Co., and that sometime in March, 1872, suit was 
entered in the Court of Justice A. E. L. Keese, by one 
Brown, against the firm of Emmart, Dunbar & Co., and this 
deponent appeared at three different times noticed for the 
trial of the case, which was each time continued upon 
some frivolous pretext or other. The last appearance of 
this deponent was in April, 1872, and a further con¬ 
tinuance was granted at the instance of the plaintiff, 
when this deponent expressed much dissatisfaction at 
these continued delays, and Justice Keese remarked that 
he did not know what this deponent had to say in the 
matter, and if he did not keep quiet he would commit 
him for contempt. This deponent replied that he did not 
care much what he (Justice Keese) did with the case, as 
this deponent intended to carry it to a higher court any¬ 
how. This deponent then left and heard nothing from 
the case until he was notified to appear in defence at the 
higher court, where it appeared that Justice Keese had 
certified judgment against us to the higher court, where 
judgment was confirmed by default, this deponent not 
having more time to expend upon it; but it is the firm 
belief of this deponent that the case promptly and fairly 
tried would have been decided in his firm’s favor. And 
further, this deponent saith not. 


L. W. EMMART. 


/ 



11 


Sworn and subscribed before me this 16th day of July, 
1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, Chairman. 


Testimony of J. Weed Corey. 

J. Weed Corey being sworn, deposes and says: That 
one G. J. Bond, a clerk in the Second Auditor’s Office of 
the Treasury Department, did, on or about the 13th day 
of February, 1873, knowingly, wilfully and maliciously 
swear falsely that this deponent was indebted to him in 
the sum of eighty-five dollars; that this deponent was dis¬ 
posing of his property and about to abscond from the 
District of Columbia to defraud him, the said Bond, as 
this deponent’s creditor; upon which affidavit, the said 
Bond, confederating with one Mr. Derwan, of the same 
office with said Bond, as surety, secured from one H. B. 
Moulton, also a clerk in the office with said Bond and 
Derwan, and doing business as Justice of the Peace at or 
near No. 412 Four-and-a-half street southwest, in the 
city of Washington, a foreign attachment, thereby possess¬ 
ing himself of the money of this deponent in the hands 
of Mr. J. A. Puff, to the amount of over thirty-three dol¬ 
lars; that said Moulton never issued nor served any notice 
nor process upon this deponent of any name or nature 
well knowing this deponent’s place of business for the last 
five years in the city of Washington, as also this de. 
ponent’s residence could easily be found, from the fact that 
said Bond resided within four squares from this deponent; 
(hat this deponent never had the remotest idea of dis¬ 
posing of his goods or property in this .city of Washing, 
ton for any purpose whatever, and found by accident, as 
it were, that his money had been unlawfully taken, on or 
about the 19th day of February, 1873, or six days after 
said Moulton had entered judgment of condemnation 
against this deponent’s goods and money as aforesaid; that 



12 


when the discovery was made this deponent repaired at 
once to the office of said Moulton, situated nearly two 
miles distant from not only the residence of this depo¬ 
nent, but from the residence of both said Bond and said 
Derwan as well, and upon examining the docket of said 
Moulton, this deponent, for the first time knew that he 
was or had been in any manner or in any sum whatever 
indebted to said Bond directly or indirectly according to 
any law or rule of equity in existence; that this deponent 
did not appeal from the judgment rendered by said Moul¬ 
ton, from the fact that it was a conspiracy to secure 
money under false pretences, and each of the aforesaid 
individuals were ready to defend and protect the dishon¬ 
orable actions of his associates, and an appeal would be 
useless; that this deponent was advised by eminent coun¬ 
sel learned in the law to commence criminal proceedings 
against said Moulton, Bond and Derwan, but not washing 
to drag his name into contact with such questionable pro¬ 
ceedings, especially when all parties interested in such 
damnable schemes would do anything to protect each 
other from suffering the just penalties of such wilful, cor¬ 
rupt and malicious perjuries, it was deemed best to lose 
the sum of thirty-three dollars. This deponent verily be¬ 
lieves that said Moulton did, knowingly and wilfully, 
violate the law in this case, and did trample under his 
feet all decency, honor and manhood* and all respect for 
the rights of citizens within the jurisdiction of his court, 
and that said case was concocted in view of securing this 
deponent’s money by acting from a remote distance from 
where this deponent would be apt to learn of their scheme 
until too late to demand a trial before an impartial mag¬ 
istrate or before a jury of his peers. How well this im¬ 
maculate two succeeded, will appear by inspection of said 
Moulton’s docket. 


J. WEED COREY. 


13 


Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 18th day of 
July, 1873. 

«. JAS. G. LONG, 

Chairman. 


Testimony of Samuel Burrill. 

Samuel Burrill, being duly sworn, says: That my 
wife, five children and furniture were put out on the 
street while I was away attending to a summons before 
Justice Ferguson, on Capitol hill, about five weeks ago. 
No notice of any kind from Squire Iveese was ever served 
on me or my wife, and yet all I possessed in the world was 
put out on the road by his warrant by Constable O’Neal; 
and they even got two County policemen to stand by and 
see that my poor wife and little ones made no resistance in 
my absence. This was the result of a conspiracy between 
Ernest Dichman and the officers of justice to come even 
with me, after having beaten him four times before 
honest justices. I mean Squires Tait and Ferguson. 
Dichman asked Constable Horatio Maryman to do this 
dirty work , but he would not; so he got the tools which 
suited him, for which he was fined $50. This case is 
well known to the following persons: Squire Tait, Squire 
Walters, Squire Ferguson, Lawyer McConnell, County 
Policeman Anderson, County Policeman Arnold. If you 
are investigating rascality, I would like you would look 
into Ernest Dichman’s way of doing business. He needs 
overhauling as much as Keese or his constables. 

I am well known to the postmaster and everybody in 
this place, and myself and wife are ready to swear to this 
as the truth any time you want us. 

his 

SAMUEL X BURRILL, . 

mark. 

* * 

her 

HANNAH X BURRILL. 

mark. 



14 


Subscribed and sworn to 
1873. 


before me this 22d of July, 

JAS. (4. LOHG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Edward Chesley. 

Edward Chesley, 415 Seventh street, being duly 
sworn, deposes and says: That sometime in 1870 or 1871, 
one T. Clement, formally a clerk for Smith & Strong’s 
Art Gallery, came to this deponent with an oil painting 
of himself, which he desired to have framed in a gold 
frame ; for which he agreed to pay this deponent twenty- 
two dollars, one half down, and the balance in thirty 
days. When the frame was completed, sometime in Feb¬ 
ruary, 1871, said Clement came to this deponent and de¬ 
sired to take away the said picture or paiiting and frame 
without paying the stipulated cash payment or any portion 
of*it, which this deponent refused to permit, and called 
in a policeman to protect his premises and property from 
spoliation. ITe then demanded the delivery of the paint¬ 
ing without the frame, which this deponent also refused; 
whereupon Clement left deponent’s premises. About three 
hours later in the same day a person came in and discovered 
the portrait of Mr. Clement, and asked this deponent whose 
picture it was, or if it was not T. Clement’s, and upon re¬ 
ceiving an affirmative answer, exhibited an execution 
against said Clement, levied upon the portrait to satisfy 
said execution, and carried the painting away, leaving 
the frame on the hands of this deponent, after having first 
informed this deponent that he could replevy the picture 
for twenty dollars, or that he (the said officer) would do 
it for him (the said deponent) 'for fifteen dollars; which 
offer the deponent also refused. This deponent does not 
know the name of the justice who issued said execution, 



or of the constable who served it, but that it was done 
through the legal services or assistance of one lawyer 
Williams. I think it was A. B. Williams, but am not cer¬ 
tain. This deponent is of opinion that he was defrauded 
out of the possession of said painting, as he believes 
that family portraits are exempt from seizure on execu¬ 
tion, and that said fraud was connived at by some one 
of the justices and constables of the District of Columbia. 

EDWARD CIIESLEY. 


Subscribed and sworn before me this 16th day of July 
1873. 


JAMES G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Mrs. Elizabeth Barrett. 

Mas. Elizabeth Barrett, No. 121 North A street, 
Capitol hill, being duly sworn, says: That on the 19th 
day of April, 1873, she entered suit before Justice J. A. 
Tait against a tenant of hers, one George Rowe, for house 
rent, claiming sixteen dollars rent for one month. On the 
return day the case was removed by affidavit to the court 
of Justice Ferguson. The later justice put -the case over 
till Monday. On Monday a hearing was had, when Rowe 
put in a plea that he moved out because of the smallpox 
being in the neighborhood, and that I ought to have gone 
and compelled the neighbors who had the smallpox to 
keep the windows closed; that he claimed that I owed 
him two dollars and a half for lost time in moving, etc., 
and Justice Ferguson rendered judgment against me for 
the two dollars and a half claimed, and cost of trial, one 
dollar, which, added to the cost paid Tait, made ($4.50) 
four dollars and a half that it cost me for sueing a 
tenant for rent. 



16 


And this deponent farther says: That she obtained 
judgment in Justice Walter’s court for some ninety-five 
dollars against a tenant named Humphries, the execution 
for which was placed in the hands of Constable Kimmell, 
who seized upon goods without appraisal, which were re¬ 
plevied by Humphries, and the costs thrown upon this 
deponent, who is a widow woman ignorant of her rights 
under the law; that Humphries and his friends obtained 
a judgment against her before Justice Keese for nineteen 
dollars and fifty cents, without any notice whatever to this 
deponent. The same case was sent to Justice Klopfer to 
make the money out of her; that she consulted Lawyer 
Norris, who went to see Klopfer, and she has since heard 
nothing of it. 

This deponent verily believes that the justices and con¬ 
stables conspired together to protect her tenants in de¬ 
frauding her out of her just dues for rents, and throw 
the costs on her. 

her 

ELIZABETH X BARRETT. 

mark. 

Sworn and subscribed before me this 17th day of July, 
in the city of Washington, A. D. 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Jonathan Dennis. 

Jonathan Dennis, being duly affirmed, says: On or 
about the 15th of January, 1873,1 deposited my bill for 
eleven dollars against Win. J. McCollum, with Justice 
Joseph T. K. Plant, and paid him one dollar to cover costs, 
etc. He brought suit and gave judgment in my favor in 
about two or three weeks, and as I understood him gave the 
judgment to Constable Stewart for collection. I believe 
his name is John H. Stewart. I saw him some time 
afterwards, and he asked me if I would give or allow him 



two dollars for collecting it. I replied that I supposed 
.the law fixed his fees, and I would not give or allow him 
any more. In the course of the next four or five months, 
I called on Justice Plant, and several times he told me 
he forgot to ask Stewart about it, and told me to call 
the next day, and I did, and got the same or a similar 
answer. After calling somewhere about ten times, I 
learned from a third party that McCollum had paid 
Ihe debt, and called and told Plant so. I think he 
alleged Stewart had the money ; and when I called one 
time, he (Plant) said McCollum paid the money to him 
in the office. 

On the first of July, 1873, I asked to see the record of 
the judgment, and Plant put me off, alleging it was in 
his other book and it would take so long to find it, but 
said he would give me a copy the next morning. On the 
2d of July I called and asked for a copy and he refused to 
give it to me. I asked to see the record and he refused 
to show it to me, and said he would not show it to me ; 
scolded at me, and used very loud language, and treated 
me in a very undignified and ungentlemanly manner. 
On the morning of the Sd*of July I called with a friend, 
and asked Plant to show me the record of the judgment 
in my case. He said he would not show it to me, but 
promised I should be paid Cie dollar that I paid him to 
bring suit. He scolded me very loudly and told me not to 
come there again or any more. In the course of an hour or 
two, Constable Stewart came to my office and laid two 
five dollar bills on my table, which I understood him 
Plant sent me on account of the judgment. I asked to 
see the judgment, and stated that was not the amount I 
was entitled to. He said, as I understood him, that if it 
was not right I must call at Plaut’s office. 

On the 18th of July, more than six months after I car¬ 
ried my account to Plant, I took a friend with me, deeming 


18 


it unsafe to go alone, not knowing what condition I should 
find justice in, and asked Plant to show me the record of 
the judgment, and he said he “ would not show it to me.’ 

I told him he only sent me ten dollars by Stewart, or 
that Stewart only left me ten dollars; that my bill was 
eleven dollars, and I paid him one dollar to bring suit, 
and demanded two dollars more with the interest from 
the date of judgment, until the debt was paid. This just 
demand he refused to pay, and called me one or more 
opprobrious names, and told me not to come there again. 
While in Plant’s office a young man present volunteered 
a statement, and said he saw Plant give Stewart eleven 
dollars to bring me and that Stewart only put ten dollars 
on my table. I noticed this was the same young man 
that came to my office with Stewart when he left the ten 
dollars. From the above I think it is clear that Plant 
holds two dollars of my money and some interest, which 
he refused to pay me. 

All of which is respectfully submitted by— 

JONATHAN DENNIS, Jr. 
Washington, 7th mo., 19th, 1873. 

Subscribed and affirmed before me the date above writ¬ 
ten. 

SIDNEY W. HERBERT, 
Chairman pro tern. 


Testimony of John Deinhardt. 

John Deinhardt, restaurant keeper, corner G and 
Seventh northwest, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That on the 6th of March, 1873, Hamilton and Pearson 
obtained judgment against him, this deponent, for the 
sum of eleven dollars and seventy-five cents debt, and one 
dollar and sixty-five cents costs, in the court of Justice J. 
T. K. Plant; from which judgment this deponent took an 
appeal to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, 


i 



19 


and the said Justice Plant refused totaketlie appeal bond 
and certify to the said appeal until this deponent should 
pay him four dollars and ten cents costs, which this depo¬ 
nent paid, although he considered the same an illegal and 
extortionate charge. And this deponent further says: 
That said Justice Plant gave him no receipt for the said 
sum of four dollars and ten cents costs. 

JOHN HEINHAKHT. 


Sworn and ^subscribed to before me this 21st day of 
July, 1873. 

JAMES G. LONG, 
Chairman . 


Testimony of Cornelius Shea. 

Cornelius Shea, corner Third and L streets northwest, 
grocer, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That one G. 
W. Lusby obtained judgment against him, (this de¬ 
ponent,) in the court of Justice Jas. A. Tait, on the 3d of 
July instant, for eleven dollars and fifty cents debt, and 
one dollar and thirty-five cents costs; that on the 5th of 
July this deponent settled the amount of the execution in 
Squire Tait’s office, by paying to Constable J. F. Gordon 
fourteen dollars and twenty-five cents, and that he (this 
deponent) then and there demanded a receipt from said 
Gordon for the money so paid, which he, the said Gordon, 
flatly refused to give me. This deponent then appealed 
to Justice Tait for a receipt, when he handed me a copy 
of the summons and record, and said that was all I 
wanted. I told him it was no receipt or satisfaction 
piece. He said that was all he would give me. I then 
left his office. 

C. SHEA. 


Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 21st day of 
July, 1873. 


JAS. G. LONG, Chairman. 


/ 



Testimony of N. Davidson. 

N. Davidson, 1737 Pennsylvania avenue, being duly 
sworn, says: That about the first of June he was war¬ 
ranted by 0. Kimmell, who refused to leave a copy of 
warrant, to appear before Justice Walter to answer a 
claim of R. Beresford upon a promissory note for forty 
dollars, upon which there was an endorsement of twenty 
dollars receipted on the back of said note by R. Beresford. 
About the 19th of June Constable C. A. Kimmell went 
to the house of this deponent, in his absence, and pre¬ 
sented an execution for forty-three dollars, the amount on 
the face of the note, and costs, and took therefrom one 
marble-top centre table, one whatnot, one writing desk, 
and two gold pens and holders, leaving with Mrs. David¬ 
son a notice that he should sell the same on the 1st of 
July, at the City Hall, to satisfy said writ of Fi. Fa. And 
this deponent further says, That said articles were exempt 
from seizure, under the acts of Congress, of July 10, 1869, 
and February 5,1867, respectively known as the married 
women’s and house-keepers’ exemption laws, and that 
said constable was informed at the time, that none of the 
property so taken belonged to this deponent, except the 
gold pens and holders;but that he took them away, not¬ 
withstanding; that on the next day execution was stayed 
two months by supersedeas, and the property recovered, 
except one of the gold pens and holder, which has not yet 
been returned. This deponent verily believes the judg¬ 
ment illegal in amount, the levy illegally made, and the 
costs ($7.28) exorbitant. N. DAVIDSON. 

Sworn before me, July 21, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, Chairman. 

' Testimony of Leon Poppars. 

Leon Poppars, 317 13J street northwest, being sworn, 
savs: That he is the owner of hand carts, one of which 

«/ 7 



21 


be hired out to one Benjamin Cooper. Constable John 
I). Clark having an execution against said Cooper, levied 
upon deponent’s push cart. He had been informed that 
it was not the property of Cooper, and that is vvasexempt 
if it had been. Deponent replevied the cart in the court 
of Justice Keese, and obtained damages and costs against 
Clark, amounting to fifty-three dollars or more. He 
placed said judgment in the hands of Constable Lacey, 
who reported that he could not make the money out of 
the constable. This deponent does not think a man is 
fit for a constable who cannot satisfy a judgment for 
forty dollars. Clark took an appeal to the Supreme court, 
which remitted the damages of forty dollars, and held 
him for the costs of thirteen dollars, which deponent has 
never been able to collect of said Clark. 

LEOH POPPARS. 


Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 22d day of 
July, 1873. 


JAS. LOHG-, 


Chairman. 


Testimony of E. P. Dougherty. 

Ed. P. Dougherty, contractor, being sworn, says: 
That during his (deponent’s) absence from the city, October, 
1872, Constable Kimmell levied upon a valuable one-horse 
buggy, which cost this deponent one hundred and fifty 
dollars, and sold the same, as this deponent understands ; 
but that this deponent now almost daily sees said Kim¬ 
mell driving upon the streets in the said buggy. And 
this deponent further says, that he has several times asked 
said Kimmell for a statement of the account against, and 
an account sales of, the property levied upon, and has 
never yet been able to obtain even that satisfaction. 

EDWARD P. DOUGHERTY. 



Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 


22d day of 


July, 1873. 



G. 


LONG, 
Chair man. 


Testimony of Edward Pipenbring. 

Edward Pipenbring, corner 14th and C southwest, 
sworn, says : Is a baker. About four months ago Justice 
0. P. Webster placed in constable B. D. Klopfers hands 
an execution in favor of this deponent for twenty-five 
dollars and costs, interests, &c., against one L. Schultz, 
Maryland avenue, near Four-and-a-half street southwest, 
and said Klopfer told this deponent that if he made the 
money he should charge him, this deponent, ten per cent, 
of the amount, to which this deponent agreed. And this 
deponent further says: That he is informed that Klopfer 
has collected the full amount of said judgment some 
weeks since, but says he cannot pay it to this deponent— 
acknowledges he has it, but has such pressing demands 
for money that he cannot spare it now; deponent has 
asked him for it three several times without success. 

E. PIPENBKING. 

if 

Sworn and subscribed before me this 23d July, 1873. 

JAMES G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Mary Minor. 

Mary Minor, Fourth street southeast, sworn, says: 
That early in July instant she was a tenant for one Cross, 
on Virginia avenue, a Methodist clergyman; had paid her 
rent in advance; Cross came to her house, opened the same 
with a master or false key, and put her things in the 
street without any legal process whatever known to this 
deponent; said Cross said he acted on the advice of Jus- 




tice Ferguson. He put her furniture in the street three 
several times, and in so doing damaged them; that she 
brought a suit of trespass before Justice Martin, in which 
Mr. Cross swore that he acted by the advice of said Jus¬ 
tice Ferguson. Justice Martin gave this deponent judg¬ 
ment tor eighty-one dollars damages against said Cross. 

MARY MINOR. 

Sworn and subscribed this 24th day of July, 1878, 
before me. 

W. E. VERMILLION, 

Chairman pro tern. 


Testimony of Isaac Cross. 

I was summoned to appear before Justice Tait, to 
answer on charge of damages for $50. I applied for change 
of venue, and counsel for prosecution applied to Justice 
Tait for nolle pros., which I objected to, insisting that 
according to statute the case should go before Justice 
Ferguson; but was over-ruled by Esquire Tait. I was 
next summoned to answer charge for damages of $100 
before Esquire Martin. Complainant called for a jury 
trial, and the time was extended to July 22, at 9 o’cloc-k 
a. m. At this time I appeared, and my counsel, Mr. 
Milan. I took no witnesses, as I expected the case to be 
deferred, and so applied. Justice Martin said I could 
have an extension of time, but at my cost. Mr. Milan 
advised me not to accept it on said terms ; and supposing 
him to know what was proper in the case, declined 
accepting, and concluded to go on, as I was assured that 
probably the points I intended to prove would be admitted; 
which I found not to be the case. After commencing the 
trial, and before, Mr. Milan, my counsel, insisted that the 
proper course to take was to make no defence, and apply 
for remedy by appeal; and when I objected, he refused to 



24 


act as counsel, and so notified the justice. I then asked 
Esquire Martin for an adjournment, but was denied ; and 
attempting to get my contract before the jury, found much 
difficulty; and the Justice, although permitting me finally 
to read it, said “it had no relation to the case.” And 
knowing that Constable Maryman had from the beginning 
espoused the cause of the complainant, Mary Minor, and 
that he summoned the jury (who were strangers to me) 
I became assured of the impossibly of obtaining a just ver¬ 
dict, and so left the office. Since then, with the aid of other 
counsel, I have diligently applied for remedy, on the 
ground of excessive damages, and also that under the cir¬ 
cumstances I could not have a fair trial; offering to pay 
all costs, provided Justice Martin would order a new 
trial before himself, so that I could proceed with proper 
counsel to make my defence; but have been constantly 
denied by said Justice. Mr. Martin stated to Mr. Duval, 
my counsel, that he (Justice M.) had the right to order a 
new trial, and promised to give an answer yesterday (24th 
inst.) at 12 m., if he concluded to do so. At that time 
he stated his desire to grant a new trial, but said he had 
no authority. He would gladly do it, he said, but could 
not. 

ISAAC CROSS. 

Sworn before me this 25th of July. 

JAS. Gi. LOHG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of H. R. Maryman. 

Horatio R. Maryman, being duly sworn, deposes and 
says: That on or about the 16th of May, 1873, Mr. Bos¬ 
well placed in my hands several executions for collection, 
one of which, for about ninety dollars, was against Sid¬ 
ney McFarland. I took these executions from Justice 
Joseph, paying him his costs of issue upon the same ; and 



Mr. F. A. Boswell instructed me to collect the amounts 
as best I could, either by monthly payments or by notes 
of the parties at short dates, or otherwise, and voluntarily 
offered to allow me ten per centum on the amounts so 
settled and collected. I called several times upon Sidney 
McFarland at the market, his place of business, and did 
not see him. When I did see him, I presented the execu¬ 
tion for settlement, and told him that Mr. Boswell did 
not wish to cause him inconvenience, but that he wanted 
his money, and if he could not pay it all at once, he might 
pay it by installments. He said that he would go and 
see Mr. Boswell and settle it. A week or so afterwards, 
I saw Mr. Boswell, who said McFarland had not called 
on him ; that it was not worth while to mind what he 
(McFarland) said, he had promised so often—if he had 
anything, I had better make it ; then went several times 
again to see McFarland, without finding him—think he 
was engaged at court. When I found him, he said he had 
been so busy that he had not been to see Boswell, but 
would go at once. I told him my instructions were to 
proceed to levy, if the matter was not settled ; he said he 
had no goods to levy upon. 

A week or ten days later, I called on Mr. Boswell to 
pay him some money, when Mr. A. M. Boswell, clerk to 
F. A. Boswell, remarked to me that Sidney McFarland 
had been there and paid him some money, and had 
executed monthly notes for the balance of the account, 
and asked me for the execution. Upon looking at it, he 
said that McFarland had not given his notes for enough. 
He then made a note or notes for the balance, and re¬ 
quested me to go up and see McFarland, and get him to 
sign them. I went to the market, and not finding him 
in, proceeded to his house, and found him there. I showed 
him the note or notes,and told him of the discrepancy be¬ 
tween the execution and the amount of the notes. Tie re- 


4 


fused to sign the note or notes, and said he had settled 
with Mr. Boswell, and he would give no more noth s. I 
made no threat to levy on his furniture or property, but 
told him there had been a mistake made in the matter. 
He then proposed to meet me the next day to go and see 
Mr. Boswell about the matter, and I agreed to meet him 
at Martin’s office. We did meet there, and went together 
to Boswell’s office on Four-and-a-half street. We found 
Mr. F. A. Boswell there, and after some talk between 
them about interest, Mr. Boswell turned to me and asked 
how much he had to pay me, and I said five per cent, for 
my trouble. I then gave him a receipt for five dollars 
and five cents, which sum McFarland wished to pay to 
me, but I would not permit him to pay me anything. I 
told him my business was with Mr. Boswell. Boswell 
then paid me the money, and took the receipt, and en¬ 
dorsed it over to McFarland, I think. I wish to file the 
following letters of F. A. Boswell, L. G. Fine, P. B. 
Stilson, and Jno. Cruikshank, esqs., as a portion of my 
defence against the charges of Sidney McFarland. I 
would further state my surprise at the complaints of 
McFarland, who expressed his gratitude to me for my 
leniency in the above matter. 

H. R. MARYMAK 

Sworn and subscribed before me, July 24, 1873. 

JAMES G. LOJSTG, 
Chairman. 

Letter from Mr. liosweil. 

My Dear Sir : Mr. H. R. Mary man informs me that Sidney Mc¬ 
Farland has«preferred charges against him in a certain case where I 
was plaintiff. I would state that when I placed my cases in Mr. 
Maryman’s hands, I voluntarily informed him that he should receive 
ten per cent, upon all cases collected or settled by note or otherwise, 
hi the case of Mr McFarland, when the settlement was being made, 
Mr. Maryman charged five percent, for his trouble in settling the case, 
and the cost which was due the justice for the judgment, execution, 
&c. Mr. Maryman refused, however, to make any charge to Mr. 


McFarland, but made out the bill and receipt to me, which Mr. Mc¬ 
Farland paid me, and I turned the receipt over to him. As before 
stated, this was ah execution, and Mr. Maryman had called many 
times to see Mr. McFarland in reference to tlie matter. I cannot see 
that any charge can be sustained in this case ; but if the committee 
wish, I will be pleased to call on them in person and state the facts to 
the committee more in detail. 

Respectfully, 

F. A. BOSWELL. 

lion. Jus. (x. Long , Chairman Committee II. of D., D. C. 

P. S. This commission was charged, in accordance with our agree¬ 
ment, for his trouble in attending to the case. 


So far as appears from the foregoing statement of Mr. Boswell, the 
fees charged by Mr. Maryman were not only authorized by law, but it 
appears that he refused to receive them from the defendant, McFar¬ 
land. If any one has a right to complain, it is Mr. Boswell; and he 
has no legal right to complain. 

(Signed) L. G. HINE. 

I fully concur in the abovp opinion. 

(Signed) P. B. STILSON. 

I concur in opinion with Messrs. Hine and Stilson. 

(Signed) JNO. CRUIKSHANK. 


Testimony of Samuel Abraham. 

Samuel Abraham, formerly of the firm of Abraham 
& Brother, jewelers, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That his firm obtained a judgment against one Constable 
A. J. Thomas for the value of goods improperly levied 
upon in the store of one Thompson, in Georgetown, dated 
12th of August, 1872, in the court of Justice Martin ; 
that the firm of this deponent has used due diligence, 
through counsel and constables, to collect said judgment, 
and that they have thus far been unsuccessful—the return 
to the writ being no property found. This deponent is also 
advised by counsel learned in the law T that the bondsmen 



28 


of said Constable Thomas are not responsible for said 
judgment. 

SAMUEL ABRAHAM. 

Sworn before me this 25th July, 1873. 

JAMES G. LONG. 

Chairman. 


Testimony of Augusta Lee and Mary and Jane Smackem. 

Augusta Lee and Mary Smackem depose and say: 
That they have been living as servants with Mrs. Benj. 
Gittings, corner 4th street and Indiana avenue; that on 
the 22d of July Mrs. Gittings ordered them out of the 
house, and refused to pay them their wages then due, 
being for three weeks, from 1st to 22d July, at the rate of 
eight dollars per month ; that these deponents warranted 
Mr. and Mrs. Gittings for the amount before Justice Tait; 
that after two continuances, the trial was had, and Mr. 
Gittings paid the costs of $2.50, but Justice Tait did not 
tell us how much money he had awarded us ; but that 
Mr. Gittings paid the justice four two dollar notes ; that 
Justice Tait said to these deponents, “I have your money 
for you.” 

her 

AUGUSTA+LEE. 

mark 

MARY SMACKEM. 

Sworn before me July 28, 1873. 

JAMES G. LONG, 
Chairman. 

J ane Smackem, being duly sworn, says : That she has 
heard the testimony of the witnesses, Augusta Lee and 
Mary Smackem; the latter is her daughter; was present 
at the trial before Justice Tait; that said justice told this 
deponent just after the trial that “the girls would get 


N 



29 


$1.25 each” ; this deponent told him they would not take 
that; they were entitled to six ($6) dollars for the three- 
fourths of the month, or nothing. We, Augusta, Mary 
and I, all then left, saying we would go somewhere else 
and get justice. Constable Mary man, the next evening 
(Saturday, July 26) offered to this deponent $4.75, which 
he, said Justice Tait, had given him for the girls. I de¬ 
clined to take it. 

her 

JANE+SMACKEM. 

mark 

Sworn before me July 28, 1873. 

JAMES G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of August Dorr and John Reynolds. 

August Dorr, corner 4th and Market streets, George¬ 
town, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That Justice 
Hughes rendered judgment against this deponent at suit 
of J. B. Yanderwerken for $4.50 debt and $5 costs, and 
issued an attachment for same upon wages of this depo¬ 
nent in hands of my employer, John Reynolds ; warrant 
was served verbally by constable Bickster, who also served 
the attachment on Mr. Reynolds; and this deponent 
verily believes that the said $5 costs are illegal and exor¬ 
bitant. This, on the 25th day of July, 1873. 

AUGUST DORR. 

John Reynolds, cooper, Grace street, Georgetown, being 
duly sworn, deposes and says: That constable Bick¬ 
ster did serve on this deponent an attachment for 
money due August Dorr, in my hands, for $4.50 debt and 

$5 costs of suit, the same issued by Justice Hughes. 

JOIIU T. REYNOLDS. 



30 


Testimony of M. S. V. Heard . 

M. S. Y. Heard, residing at 1107 Tenth street, being 
duly sworn, deposes and says: That on the 22d day of 
July, 1873, while this deponent was removing his house¬ 
hold furniture from, the house, Ho. 1310 G- street, to Ho- 
1107 Tenth street, Washington, one or two constables, 
named Kimmell,appeared at the house, 1107 Tenth street, 
and seized and removed one piano, u 7 octave, Marshall 
& Travers,” upon an attatchment. for rent claimed to be 
due to Dr. J. Ford Thompson, for the house, Ho. 1310 
G street; that tliis deponent arrived at his residence, 
while said constables were in the act of removing said 
piano, and forbade its removal on said attachment, on the 
ground that it was the property of the wife of this depo¬ 
nent, that it had been purchased by her six years before, 
and was exempt from seizure for the liabilities of this 
deponent; that there was other property there belonging 
to this deponent, upon which they could levy; that the 
said constable declined to attach any other property but 
the piano and its wraps, which they proceeded to remove, 
and take away from the premises aforesaid. 

And this deponent further says, that he had never 
refused to pay what rent might be found due from him to 
the said Thompson; that he had some two weeks pre¬ 
viously given said Thompson a check for fifty dollars on 
account of the rent for the month of June, and had then 
notified the said Thompson that he found his house too 
large for this deponent, and that he should probably have 
to give it up as soon as he could find a residence better 
adapted to his purposes; that he, this deponent, would in 
a few days pay him the balance of the June rent, twenty- 
five dollars, to all of which said Thompson made no ob¬ 
jection at that time; that on the 22d day of July, said 
Thompson drove up, appearing much excited and indig¬ 
nant to find that deponent was removing, and said to this 


deponent, “How is this ?” Deponent replied that he was 
removing, as lie had notified him he should do, and 
attempted to explain why he had not the money to pay 
him on that day, and that he probably would have it in 
a day or two ; that Thompson demanded, excitedly, “Have 
you the money?” Deponent replied, “Ho;” that Thompson 
refused to listen to any explanation, but threatened to get 
an attachment, and leaped into his buggy and drove 
rapidly away. In less than an hour, as this deponent 
believes, the constables were in his house, on 10th street, 
with an attachment, levying upon the piano as aforesaid ; 
that this deponent verily believes that this summary 
process was in itself illegal; that the seizure of the piano 
was illegal, being exempt by law; that there was a con¬ 
spiracy between the justice, constables and Thompson, to 
enforce by every means in their power the immediate 
payment of the money from this deponent, a portion of 
which was not yet due. 

M. S. Y. HEARD. 

Sworn before me July 80, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman . 


Testimony of Frank L. Bancroft. 

Frank L. Bancroft, being duly sworn, says: He re¬ 
sides in Alexandria, Va., but is employed in the District, 
on the Public Works ; that Constable Lacey, yesterday, 
July 28th, levied upon two horses, one cart and gear, be¬ 
longing to my wife, to satisfy an execution against this 
deponent for less than sixty dollars; that the property so 
taken could not be purchased to-day in the market for 
less than three hundred dollars; that said Constable 
Lacey refused to surrender said property when informed 
that it was not the property of this deponent; that he 
also refused to surrender said property upon the order of 



Justice Klopfer, who had taken ample security for the 
judgment and costs, without the payment of his costs of 
$6.70 in cash ; that this deponent verily believes the levy 
was illegal, because the property was exempt; that the 
levy was excessive, being for three times the amount of 
the execution; and that said Lacy made this excessive 
levy for the purpose of making a replevy suit so expensive 
(it would have to be brought in the Supreme court) that 
it would be cheaper for the owners to pay the debt than 
to release the property by replevy. 

F. L. BANCROFT. 


Sworn to and subscribed before me this 29th of July, 
1873. 


JAS. GL LONG, 
Chairman . 


Testimony of Alexander Meffitt. 

Alexander Meffitt, being duly sworn, deposes and 
says: That he resides at National Park; is a carriage 
builder; one of his hands, named Coe, became dissatisfied; 
we had some words, and the next morning, after break¬ 
fast, he concluded to leave. I proposed to settle with 
him; he said, “no; I have got a man to settle with you, 
and am going to give you all the trouble I can.” This was 
about 11 o’clock, a. m. He was a trimmer by trade, and 
did some painting for me; had worked for two years, 
during which time we had had but one settlement; he 
threatened to sue me; I told him I would prefer not 
being sued, but if he went to law, I would keep him 
out of what I owed him as long as I could. He said 

I could not keep him out of it; he had a job fixed up for 
me. Our words the evening before were concerning the 
making of time, quitting too soon, &c. He went between 

II and 12 o’clock. Between 1 and 2 o’clock, Constables 



Gordon and Sprague and Policeman Anderson came. I 
was in the smith shop when they came; they did not in¬ 
quire for me; the constables immediately went up stairs 
in the shop. T asked Anderson what was wanted ; he 
said some officers had gone up stairs for something. He 
called them down at my request, when I asked them what 
they wanted; Sprague replied that they knew their busi¬ 
ness ; they had been into the paint shop; when they left, 
the painter at work there had bolted the door. I went 
up there by another passage; Sprague bursted open the 
bolted door and rushed into the paint shop about the 
same time. He then drew his pistol, and pointing it first 
at the painter and then at me, threatened to shoot us if 
we interfered. I told him to put up his pistol; Anderson 
also came in and ordered him to put it up, and he did so. 
They then commenced to remove a skeleton wagon ; I told 
them to be careful and not take property that belonged to 
other people; they said they knew what to take, the 
wagon was mine, for I had offered to sell it. I said they 
had not yet shown me any authority to take anything, 
and demanded to see their papers ; they then presented 
what purported to be a writ from Justice Ferguson, at¬ 
taching my goods at suit of Coe, for $98.50 ; I objected to 
their taking the skeleton wagon, and asked them to take 
another wagon that was down stairs. Sprague said they 
would take this wagon and the big picture down stairs; 
that they had other attachments, amounting to more than 
two hundred dollars, for other parties. I demanded to 
see them ; they did not show them, but Sprague whis¬ 
pered in my ear that they would only take the wagon 
that day, as it was sold to John Price, who was to give 
$150 for it, and that would satisfy Coe’s claim. The 
wagon was not quite finished, but when complete, would 
have been worth $250 with pole and shafts. This depo¬ 
nent verily believes that the summary process was illegal, 


that the levy was excessive, and that the manner of mak¬ 
ing the levy was improper and unbecoming public officers, 
for which they are liable for damages, and should be 
broken of their offices. 

A. MEFFITT. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me July 30, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Mrs. Theresa Solomons. 

Theresa Solomons, 311 -street south, being duly 

sworn, deposes and says: That she and her husband man¬ 
ufacture and sell furniture. During: the last three or 
four months, Justice Keese has attended to my law 
business for me, such as drawing papers and bringing 
small suits; drew up a deed of trust for me about the 
first of May last for $800, to secure the payment of 
sixteen notes of $50 each. It conveyed a lot of furniture I 
had sold to Mrs. Hutton to Mr. Lewis Behrend, in trust, 
to secure the payment of the notes aforesaid ; did not in¬ 
tend to deliver furniture until deed was recorded; sent 
word to Keese to know if deed was placed on record ; he 
replied that it was; the furniture was then delivered at 
the house on Sixth street, two doors south of K; the 
first note was to have fallen due on the 1st June; Mrs. 
Hutton came to me about the 25th May and complained 
that she was so annoyed by the neighbors that she could 
not pay the money, and wished me to take some of the 
furniture back instead of the money ; went to Latimer & 
Cleary; they advised me to send the furniture to their 
store; I sent some of it there. Mrs. Hutton told me to 
send for the rest next week, when she would be ready to 
move into another house. Some four or five days after, I 
learned that the house of Mrs. Hutton was closed, and 
that the furniture was gone; called on Justice Keese to 





see about it; Justice Keese did not seem to know any 
thing about the furniture having; been removed; asked 
him for my deed of trust; he said it was at the Recorder’s 
office ; went over there; Mr. Wolf said there was no such 
deed there; went back to Justice Keese; he said tell Wolf 
to look for deed of trust for Lewis Behrend; did so; 
and Mr. Wolf said there was no such deed there ; returned 
to Iveese and told him so; he said “you are a damned 
dirty liar,” and I felt so insulted, I left and went home. A 
few days before this, Justice Keese had told me he had 
charged me $2.50 for recording the deed; employed 
Constable Lacey to find my furniture; while he was look¬ 
ing for it, Lieutenant Kellv sent a note to my house in- 
forming us that the furniture was on K street. About the 
same time, Constable Lacey reported to me that he had 
found out where the furniture was on Iv street, Ko. 19; 
went there with Lacey and saw some of the furniture in 
the hall; asked if Mrs. Hutton lived there ; the lady said 
no; asked how the furniture came there; she said it came 
there under a deed of trust; I said it was mine, and that 
I wanted it: she said I was welcome to take it; she did 
not know whose it was; it came there the night before 
between 9 and 11 o’clock; sent for a wagon and began to 
take the furniture away. Before we had done loading the 
wagon, a tall man, whose name I have since learned 
wals Bancroft, came and put what furniture was on 
the steps back into the House and locked the 
door on me and my husband and Lacey; my hus¬ 
band’s coat was in the house, and was delivered to him by 
Bancroft. We then started for Latimer & Cleary’s with 
what we had in the wagon. On the way, I stopped at 
Justice Keese’s office and told him what we had done ; 
he told me to speak Dutch, not to speak English; this 
I refused to do, as I wished Lacey and O’Keal, who were 
present, to hear what was said. Keese then sent the 


trustee to go and take possession of the furniture; lie 
told me to go home and let the trustee, Behrend, manage 
it, and the furniture would come home to my house all 
right. Mr. Lacey, Mr. O’Neal, Mr. Behrend, my husband 
and myself went to the store of Latimer & Cleary; Mr. 
Behrend told Latimer & Cleary that he was the trustee, and 
would take charge of the property; I then went home; 
have since learned that the lady who permitted me to 
take the furniture from the house on K street was the 
wife of Constable O’Neal. 

On the day or day but one before this happened, being 
at Justice Keese’s office, Constable O’Neal beckoned me out 
on the street and told me he knew where my furniture 
was—that a poor colored man had bought it from Mrs. 
Hutton; if I would give $55 to the colored man and $5 
to him, O’Neal, for his trouble, he would get it for me 
I said “ it is very hard for me to pay $60 for my own fur¬ 
niture,” and did not pay it; went home. Lacey came to 
my house with another colored man, and said he knew 
a man who knew where my furniture was, and would teli 
for $55 for the furniture and $5 for his trouble; Lacey 
advised me to pay it; I was in great trouble and had not 
the money; thought I would do it if I could borfow the 
money; sent to Mr. Boswell to try to borrow the money; 
he could not let me have it; then made an arrangement 
with Lacey to go to K street and try to get the furni¬ 
ture as before related; on the way, stopped at Keese’s 
office and asked him to go with us to get the property; 
he said he was too busy, and could not go; then tried to 
get the deed of trust as already stated, without success. 

A few days later, Latimer sent me a note saying the 
furniture was replevied ; went to see Latimer, who said 
the furniture was delivered up on the order of Justice 
Keese, saying it was all right; that he (Latimer) watched 
the furniture, and it was taken to Green & Williams’auction 


store. This deponent was present at a trial before Justice 
Shea for the possession of the property brought, as this de¬ 
ponent thinks, by Constable O’Neal; on that trial O’Neal 
swore that he was the owner of the property - had bought 
it of Mrs. Hutton for $125. Justice Shea determined that 
I should get.my furniture, as I understood it; but Mr. 
O’Neal managed to get a new trial before Justice Klopfer, 
where he had a jury, and the case was decided in my favor, 
as I supposed. For some reason, which I do not under¬ 
stand, another trial of the case was had before Justice 
Klopfer, when the case was decided in my favor, as I 
understand from my lawyer, Mr. Evans. In the trial be¬ 
fore Shea, I employed Lawyer Williams, and in that before 
Justice Klopfer, I had Lawyer Evans, from Judge Fisher’s 
office, and Lawyer Carrington. I do not understand much 
about law 7 , and may not have given all the points of this 
case correctly; Constable Lacey and my lawyers can explain 
everything clearly to the committee; do not know wffiat 
has become of the deed of trust; J ustice Shea sent to the 
Recorder’s office for it on the trial; found it was not yet 
recorded; Mr. Wolf said it had not been there long 
enough ; he had not time to record it. 

Cross-examined by Justice Keese . 

I never told Justice Keese not to have the deed recorded 
to save expenses, as I had to pay the rent, and was 
obliged to take a part of the property back; I had no 
authority to take the property from Mr. O’Neal’s house, 
other than my ownership and the permission of Mrs. 
O’Neal; heard that Justice Keese sent the trustee to 
O’Neal’s house for the remainder of the furniture, and had 
it brought 10 Latimer & Cleary’s. 

M. SOLOMONS. 

Sworn before me this 30th day of July, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 

Chairman . 


38 


Testimony of Frederick H. Williams. 

Frederick H. Williams, being duly sworn, deposes and 
says: That he resides at 469 Missouri avenue ; that he was 
employed by Mrs. Theresa Solomons last May ; knows of a 
sale of furniture to Mrs. Hutton by Mrs Solomons, about 
the middle of May last; the terms were that payment was 
to be made by giving notes of $50 each for the amount, 
which was about $800, to fall due one each month, the 
whole to be secured by a deed of trust on the furniture; 
took a list of the furniture to* Squire Keese, who I under¬ 
stood was to draw up the deed of trust; I left it with him. 
Next day, at Mrs. Solomons request,called on Justice Keese 
to see if Mrs. Hutton had signed the notes ; Keese told me 
that Mrs. Hutton wanted the notes made for $40 each, 
instead of $50, and the first one to fall due on the first of 
July, instead of first of June ; went back and reported to 
Mrs. Solomons, who directed me to say to Keese that she 
wanted the notes made as she had directed, for $50 each, 
and to fall due on the first of the month, commencing on 
the first of June; I delivered the message; Keese said, 
one wanted one thing and one another, and he would fix 
it some way; called again that evening or the next day ; 
Keese told me she, Hutton, had been there and signed 
the notes, and every-thing was all right, except that he 
did not know the number of the house that was to receive 
and hold the furniture. 

FREDERICK IT. WILLIAMS. 

Sworn to before me this 30th day of July, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Henry Lacey. 

Henry Lacey, constable, 1131 Sixteenth street, sworn: 
On or about the second week in June last, was employed by 
Mrs. Solomons to look after some furniture that she had 



lost; slk3 had sold it to a Mrs. Hutton, taking a deed of 
trust on it as security for the payment of the bill of cost ; 
soon tound the driver who moved it, and learned from 
him where it was ; informed Mrs. Solomons, and asked her 
where her deed ot trust was ; she said in the hands ot Jus¬ 
tice Keese; she wanted me to go as constable and get the 
property for her; asked her who was trustee; she said 
Squire Keese; told her it would be necessary for him to 
act in the matter, and see first if the deed was recorded. 
We then went to Squire Keese's oflhe ; she met Squire 
Keese on the street, and Mrs. Solomons spoke with him ; 
did not hear the conversation ; went to Keese’s office and 
awaited his return ; while there, Constable O’Keal came in 
and asked Mrs. Solomons whether she had learned any¬ 
thing of Mrs. Hutton or her furniture ; ‘she made an eva¬ 
sive reply and left the office; after she left the office, I 
confidentially informed him that I knew where the fur¬ 
niture was; said he was glad to hear it, and beckoned me 
outside (Mrs. Solomons having returned) ; told him the 
furniture was at Ho. 19 K street northeast; he raised up 
his hands and said, “My God, Lacy, that's my hou e, and 
I bought the furniture; I don’t want you to expose 
me, as old Keese and Hehemiah Miller got me into this 
trap.” I told him that I would not expose him ; that I 
did not wish to injure him; my only object was to get the 
furniture for Mi's. Solomons; if he would give it up 
quietly, I would say nothing about it; said he had bought 
the furniture from Mrs. Hutton, and had her receipt for 
it; just then, Keese came in and commenced to look for 
the receipt for the deed of trust. Mrs. Solomons appear¬ 
ing uneasy about its having been recorded, Keese re- 
remafked, “My God, my dear woman, I would not have 
sent you word if I had not had it all right.” He did not 
find it there; said it was mislaid; she must come in again 
after a while ; went to Recorder’s office; clerk said no such 


40 


deed as we described had been brought there by Mi*. Keese ; 
went to Judge Fisher’s office, and then returned to Keese’s 
office; Mrs. Solomons remained in my buggy. I saw 
Keese and told him that the cheapest thing for him to do 
was to help Mrs. Solomons recover her furniture without 
any trouble, he said he could not lose the time to go 
out there, as he was not trustee ; told him to take a hack 
and go and lind the trustee ; he asked who would pay for 
it; I said, Mrs. Solomons. Mrs. Solomons then came in 
and said she was willing to pay for the hack to go and get 
the trustee, as she did not believe the deed of trust was 
recorded ; Keese refused to go for the trustee; I then 
went outside with O’Neal; told him the deed of trust was 
not recorded, and Mrs. Solomons could not recover her 
goods under the law, if he chose to tight her. He said if 
I would keep my word not to expose him, he would give 
up all the furniture, and wanted me to go to the house 
and take it away. I agreed to do so, and started; on the 
way, met a lawyer and consulted him ; he advised me not 
to go, as I would lay myself liable, and Keese would not 
fail to take advantage of it; returned and informed 
O’Neal what advice I had received, and told him I could 
not go, but would send Mrs. Solomons, if lie would pro¬ 
mise not to give her any trouble ; he said, U I promise you, 
on ray honor before God, I’ll keep my word”; told him 
there, if he was going to give it up quietly, he had better 
go ahead and inform his wife, as she might kick up a fuss, 
and Mrs. Solomons would have no show; he went; I ac¬ 
companied Mrs, Solomons to the front of the house ; she 
went to the door and rang the bell; the door was opened ; 
Mrs. Solomons then called me to the door ; I saw a lady, 
who I have since learned to be Mrs. O’Neal; informed her 
that I was a constable, and had no authority to enter her 
house, but that I came to point out to Mrs. Solomons her 
house; what Mrs. Solomons did, she did on her own 


41 


'responsibility. Mrs. Solomons then directed me to bring 
her a wagon, and send her husband out; I did as directed, 
and returned with Mr. Solomons; on my way back, 
stopped at Keese’s office and told him that Mrs. Solo¬ 
mons was getting her furniture. When we arrived at the 
house in my buggy, the wagon was partly loaded; in 
about twenty minutes alter, while I was sitting in my 
buggy, and the Solomons were loading the wagon, Mr. 
Frank L. Bancroft came up and closed the door of the 
house, having first, taken in some of the furniture that was 
out on the steps; Mrs. Solomons then came and asked 
me what she should do; I told her and Mr. Solomons 
not to attempt to force their way into the house. We 
all came away, Mr. Solomons in charge of the furniture 
and Mrs. Solomons with me in my buggy. 

Mrs. Solomons and I went to Keese’s office, and shortly 

after Mr. Solomons came with the furniture and stopped; 

/ 

found O’Keal there; I called him out of the office, and 
asked him what kind of job this was that he was trying 
to put up on Mrs. Solomons ; he said, “Lacey, don’t blame 
me; old Keese made me send Bancroft out there to stop 
them from taking the furniture.” He then told me if I 
would get old Mr. and Mrs. Solomons out of the way, he 
would go with the trustee and give him the balance of 
the goods, as he did not want to be shown up in the case. 
I sent Mr. and Mrs. Solomons away, and then told the 
trustee to go home with O’Keal, and he would give him 
the balance of the furniture; and they went and got it. 
Previous to this, on the arrival of the goods, Justice Keese 
had said to Behrens, the trustee, who had arrived about 
the same time with us, “go, and take charge of those goods 
in the wagon under your deed of trust,” at the same time 
handing him a paper purporting to be the deed of trust, 
but which I afterwards learned was only a list of a por¬ 
tion of the croods named in said deed. I told the driver 

o 

6 


not to let the trustee have those goods unless Mrs. Solo¬ 
mons said so; and as Justice Keese then began talking to 
Mrs. Solomons in German, I told her not to talk with him 
in German, but speak English, so I could know whether he 
was trying to “beat” her. The trustee then took charge 
of the goods with Mrs. Solomons’ consent, and carried 
them to Latimer & Cleary’s store; I also went there with 
Mr. and Mrs. Solomons, and told her to get the paper that 
Justice Keese had given him, and let me see whether it was 
a deed of trust; I found it to be only the list as before 
stated ; the trustee asked me, what this was all about; 
I told him that Mrs. Solomons had lost her furniture, and 
this was a portion of it; I then told him that I had prom¬ 
ised O’Keal not to let Mrs. Solomons know that he had 
purchased it, as he had promised to give it all up without 
any trouble to her ; the trustee then placed the goods in 
charge of Latimer & Cleary in the name of Louis Behrens, 
trustee for Mrs. Solomons. After all the goods found had 
been placed there in the name of the trustee, they were 
replevied at the suit of O’Keal from Latimer & Cleary, 
instead of the trustee, upon a writ issued by Justice Keese, 
with F. L. Bancroft as bondsman, who is a resident of 
Alexandria, and who has sworn that he owns no real 
property in the District of Columbia. The case was re¬ 
moved from Squire Keese. On affidavit before Justice 
Klopfer on the first trial, which was before a jury, the 
jury failed to agree ; a new trial was had a few days later, 
which was before a magistrate, without a jury, by agree¬ 
ment, and was determined in favor of Latimer & Cleary, 
for the use of Solomons; O’Keal was allowed several days 
for appeal before execution was issued, and failing to file 
a bond, an execution was placed in my hands for $63.10, 
judgments and costs, against O’Keal and Bancroft as prin¬ 
cipal and surety. 

I had promised Bancroft that when execution was 


L) 

issued, I would let him know before I attempted to give 
him any trouble, as he had promised to show me where I 
could make my money; went to Alexandria and showed 
him the execution; he told me he would come up to 
Washington, and meet me at 10 o’clock that day, and try 
and have it settled ; he failed to meet me at 10 o’clock, 
and I went to Keese’s office and found him and O’Neal 
talking ; he came out and told me that O’Neal said that 
I could not make the money of him (O’Neal) and added, 
“Lacey, old boy, you know I am not going to pay it unless 
I am compelled to ; I have nothing here now.” I then 
said I should spare no pains in trying to make the money. 
I found where his horses were at work in Washington, 
and Bancroft driving them, and levied on two of them. 
Afterwards, I met Mr. Bancroft, and he told me he did 
not own the horses; my reply was, if you do not own the 
horses, then you won’t have any trouble about them; asked 
who the hprses belonged to ; he said I would find out at 
the proper time. The next day, he told me they belonged 
to his wife; told him his word that they belonged to his 
wife was no evidence, that I believed I could prove that 
they were his, as he had been driving them all along; and 
I still believe that I can prove it. Just after Mrs. Solo¬ 
mons recovered the furniture from O’Neal’s house, and 
before the replevy, O’Neal said to me, my brother-in-law 
and I have lost enough in this thing, and as he has sold 
a carpet and received $55 for it, I will recover the carpet 
for her, Mrs. Solomons, if she will pay the $55 for it, so 
that the man who purchased it will not come back on my 
brother-in-law ; I agreed to try and make that arrange¬ 
ment, in order to save Mrs. Solomons any further trouble, 
as we could not recover the carpets from the purchaser 
under the law, he being ignorant that there was a deed 
of trust on it, as the deed of trust was not recorded ; Mrs. 
Solomons agreed to pay the money, if she could raise it. 
Whilst I was waiting at her house the next day for the 


44 


money, Mrs. Solomons came in with a constable, bringing 
one half of the carpet, which she had found, and replevied 
on a writ issued by Justice Shea. On the trial before Jus¬ 
tice Shea, it appeared that the suit for replevy had been 
brought by the wrong party, Mr. Solomons, instead of the 
trustee, and Solomons was advised to accept a non-suit, and 
retain possession of the carpet; this he did. On one oc¬ 
casion during the progress of the foregoing events, I accom¬ 
panied Mrs. Solomons to the office of Justice Keese to 
obtain some papers—bills aud accounts that she wanted 
me to collect—and which were in his possession. She 
asked Keese for them, and he desired to know what she 
wanted them for; she said she thought somebody was 
trying to cheat her ; he replied that she was a God-damned 
dirty liar; he did not care who she was, if she said he was 
trying to cheat her; she began to cry, and I took her in 
my buggy and carried her home. 

Cr oss-Examination by Constable O' Neal. 

As a constable, I have legal costs in this case, on the 
execution which I have in my possession against O’Keal 
and Bancroft, amounting to $465. I have no further 
interest in the case other than the collection of this debt; 
I still hold possession of the property levied on to satisfy 
said execution; I have never seen any bond for stay of 
said execution ; I have never received any order notify¬ 
ing me that said execution had been superseded. I was 
informed by Squire Klopfer that Mr. Bancroft had filed a 
bond, and I told Mr. Bancroft that I would release the 
property as soon as I had received my legal fees. Justice 
Klopfer told me that he had superseded the execution. 1 
refused to release the property because I had not received 
my costs. I received from Justice Klopfer an order, of 
which the following is a copy: 

July 29 , 1873 . 

Sir : Louis I. O’Neal, plaintiff, ancl F. L. Bancroft, having produced 


ample security, and tiled the same, you will release the property of 
Bancroft taken on execution, viz : two horses, gear, and one cart. 

(Signed) E. J. KLOPFER, J. P. 

Mr. Henry Lacey, 

Constable. 

My refusal to comply with the above order was, first, 
because none of the costs had been paid in the suit, and I 
was entitled to my costs on the surrender of the property, 
and I was acting upon the advice of counsel. I can tell 
you what the daily cost of keeping those horses is, when 
I get the livery bill ; I have the bill now ; I decline to 
* to tell what the amount of the bill is. 

. Cross-examined by Justice Keese . 

About the second week in June, I called at the office of 
Justice Keese, when he searched for the certificate of the 
deed of trust. I knew he was looking for the certificate of 
the record of the deed of trust by the remark of Mrs. Solo¬ 
mons, that perhaps it had not been attended to, and the 
answer made by him to Mrs. Solomons; I am sure that 
O’Keal told me that “Old Keese” and K. H. Miller got him 
into this trap; I am sure you made the remark to Mrs. Solo¬ 
mons, “My dear woman,” Ac.; your conduct towards her at 
that time was apparently that of a gentleman. By the 
information from O’Keal, I was prompted to make the 
remark that it was “the cheapest thing for you to do 
to help Mrs. Solomons recover her furniture,” &c. It was 
some days after this that you called her a damned dirty 
liar. “What answer did I make to your remark about it 
being the cheapest thing for me to do,” &c.? “That you 
.had no time to go out and hunt for the trustee.” It was 
not at the time that I told you “the cheapest thing,” &c., 
that I heard you call Mrs. Solomons a damned dirty liar. 
When I wanted you to take a hack and look for the trus¬ 
tee, you said you had sent for him, and he could not be 
found ; I think the trustee arrived there about the same 


time that we arrived with the first load of furniture; 
you handed the trustee a paper, and told him to take 
charge of the goods in the wagon as trustee; then you 
turned to me and said, he (the trustee) has the deed of 
trust; trustee took charge of the goods shortly after, and 
deposited them at Latimer & Cleary’s; I told the driver 
not to deliver the goods without Mrs. Solomons’ consent; 
O’Neal went home to inform his wife of the arrangement 
to deliver the goods. I know this from his information 
and testimony before Justice Klopfer; am positive O’Neal 
used the language, “ Old Keese made me send Bancroft 
there.” The reason I stated that Keese replevied the 
goods from Latimer & Cleary, instead of the trustee, 
was because the trustee, I am informed, is the son-in-law 
of Keese, and he did wish to embarrass him; I do not 
know the name of the parties against whom the plaintiff 
asked to have the writ of replevy issued. I thought 
that Mr. Behrens would be embarrassed by the loss of 
time it would take to defend the suit, and for that reason 
Justice Keese did not issue the writ against him ; I know 
I told the trustee to go home with O’Neal, and he would 
give him the balance of the goods; do not know what 
you may have told him. The reason I told Mrs. Solo¬ 
mons not to speak German with you, but to talk English, 
so that I might know whether you was trying to beat 
her, was because, from information received from O’Neal, 

I had reason to believe you were assisting to defraud her; 
that information was that Keese put him up to the pur¬ 
chase of the furniture from Mrs. Hutton, as well as N. H. 
Miller. I know that the list which the trustee had at 
Latimer & Cleary’s was a list of a portion of the goods 
named in the deed of trust, because I saw the deed of 
trust at Squire Shea’s office at the time of the trial of the 
carpet replevy; this trial was not on the same day on . 
which the furniture was recovered from O’Neal’s house; 


I 


I think it was a few days after. I learned from Solomons, 
as well as O’Neal, that the balance of the goods had been 
delivered to Behrens, and think I also saw them at Lati¬ 
mer & Cleary’s; I cannot fix the date of the deposit of 
the goods at Latimer & Cleary’s exactly at present. On 
our first visit to the Recorder’s office, we asked the clerk 
if a deed of trust had been sent there for record, in which 
Justice Keese was trustee ; told Keese there was no deed 
of trust there; think he then said Louis Behrens was 
trustee; returned to Recorder’s office to see if a deed was 
on record with Behrens as trustee; this was between 10 
o’clock a. m. and 4 o’clock p. m. The clerk informed us 
that there was no such deed on record ; that if it was in 
the office, the person who sent it held a receipt for it. I 
cannot fix the time of day any more exactly than I have 
done; I think it was before we went to O’Neal’s house 
for the goods; don’t remember positively who was in 
your office at the time you cursed Mrs. Solomons ; I do 
not remember ever saying that I would break you up; I 
cannot say that I have malicious feelings against you. 

HENRY LACEY. 


Sworn to, July 31, 1873. 


JAMES G. LONG, 
Chairman . 


Testimony of A. M. Sprague. 

A. M. Sprague, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 
That he is a constable, and has been for the last five years, 
in the District of Columbia; but my bond has not been 
filed, because the Supreme court is not in session. On 
Saturday, July 26th, Justice Ferguson placed in the 
hands of Constable Gordon a writ of attachment, sworn 
out by Ben. Coe against Alexander Meffitt, of National 
Race Course, for $98.50, alleging that Meffitt was about 



48" 


removing his property beyond the jurisdiction of the 
court. Gordon asked me to go with him to make the 
levy, as he and* I are working together as constables and 
collectors. I do not serve any papers myself, not being 
properly bonded ; went to my house, and took my revolver 
because Meffitt had the reputation of being a trouble¬ 
some man, and had made threats that, if any constable 
came there to take his property, he would have to take it 
over his dead body; and also called upon Policeman An¬ 
derson to accompany us to Meffitt’s place, as it was on 
his beat, to sec that there was no breach of the peace. 
Gordon, Anderson, and myself then went together to 
Meffitt’s place. Gordon and I went into the house and 
up stairs to the paint-shop, and asked for Meffitt. The 
man said he did not know where he was; was about 
there awhile ago; asked him to send for him. Gordon 
then attached a skeleton wdgon, and took the shafts and 
laid them up side of the wagon; went down stairs to 
find Meffitt; the man in the paint-shop had already 
gone down stairs; found Mrs. Meffitt running across the 
grounds with something in her hands, which I thought 
was a pistol; asked her where she was going with that; 
she said she was going to protect her husband’s property. 
Returned up stairs, and found the door of the paint shop 
fastened. I pushed it open and went in ; am not certain 
whether Meffitt was in the room when I entered or came 
in just afterwards. He made threats, calling us damned 
thieves and sons-of-bitches, and forbade us to remove 
anything out of the place; said nothing in the place be¬ 
longed to him. I then told Mr. Meffitt that I had been 
informed that he had offered that wagon to John Price 
for $150; niay have whispered it to him ; do not recollect 
about that. Gordon tendered the attachment papers to 
Meffitt, who was much excited and continued raving 
and calling names; Gordon then took the wagon down 


stairs. Before this, I had gone to the veranda and 
called Policeman Anderson, and he came up. After we 
had taken the skeleton wagon apart, Meffitt called me 
one side, and said, “don’t take my wagon; take this wagon 
down here,” pointing to one down in the yard. I told 
him we could not release a wagon we had attached; we 
then went down stairs. Meffitt got over his excitement, 
and told us he did not blame us, as officers, for what we 
had done, and very kindly brought us a nut to aid in 
putting the wagon together.’ He blamed Coe very much; 
said he had treated him very badly. We did not threaten 
to take any pictures, because we did not want them; 
Coe had told us where there were pictures, but did not see 
them. I never saw Coe in my life, to know him, until the 
day before the papers were served ; had no arrangement 
with him whatever ; had no interest in the matter beyond 
that of collector and constable; had no badge ; did not 
show any ; have not had one in my possession for months. 
Meffitt said, as we were about leaving, that he supposed 
he would ha\e to pay it; he would see what he would do 
when we came to court. We took a drink together at 
Gordon’s expense, and parted, as I supposed, friends. The 
case has not yet been tried, and the wagon is in the pos- i 
session of Constable Gordon. 


Cross-examined by Mr. Meffitt. 

Might have said in Justice Ferguson’s office yesterday 
that I was so excited that I forgot to serve a paper ; do 
not recollect about that. That paper was a warrant for 
another party foreign to this case altogether. 

A. M. SPRAGUE. 


Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 31st day of 
July, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Jos. T. Gordon. 

J. T. Gordon, being sworn, says: That he has heard the 
testimony of Constable Sprague, and corroborates the 
same, with the following exceptions: When Sprague went 
down stairs to find Mefiitt, I followed him, and had gotten 
about half-way down, when I met Sprague, and we re¬ 
turned up the stairs together, and found the door bolted. 
When we broke the door in, Mefiitt was just coming up 
the other steps ; had a swingle-tree or stick in his hand, 
and said, “ you sons-of-bitches, you shan't have anything 
here.*’ 


JOS. T. GORDON. 


Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of 
July, 1878. 


-IAS. G. DONG, 
Chairman 


Testimony of Lingan B. Anderson. 

Lingan B. Anderson, being duly sworn, says: He is a 
policeman, and does duty in Uniontown; recently ac¬ 
companied Constables Gordon and Sprague to Mr. Mef- 
fitt’s place at the National Race Course. I think it was 
on the 26th of July; went at the request of Gordon and 
Sprague, who said they were going to make a levy, and 
feared they might have trouble, and wished me to go 
along to keep the peace. Ariving there, the officers went 
into the building. While I was hitching my horse, Mefiitt 
came to me from the direction of the blacksmith’s shop, 
and asked me what was wanted ; told him Gordon and 
Sprague were up stairs making a levy; Mefiitt asked me 
to call them down stairs, and I did so. Sprague soon came 
down, and in answer to an inquiry from Mefiitt, said, “he 
knew his business; they had papers.” Mefiitt left the 
room by the rear door, and Sprague, Gordon, and this depo- 




nent went up stairs ; Sprague found the door of the paint- 
room fastened; he broke it open, and drew his pistol as 
he entered the room, and moved it around as if to cover 
all in the room ; one man in the room dodged out and 
down stairs as soon as the door fell down. Meffitt then 
appeared, coming from the far end of the room toward us; 
had no stick or weapon in his hand; was somewhat 
excited on seeing the pistol, and called Sprague a coward. 
Deponent told Sprague to put up his pistol; that there was 
no need of it there; he at once put the pistol away. Mef- 
fit demanded their authority for such conduct, when 
Gordon read the papers, and handed two documents to 
Meffitt, who walked away, declining to receive them. 
Sprague and Gordon then took a wrench and commenced 
to take the skeleton wagon. Meffitt then told them that 
wagon was worth $250; and their claim being less than 
$100,1 think he asked them to levy on something else, 
but am not certain ; -think Sprague said they had already 
levied on the wagon, and could not make any change. 
Sprague said he had other executions, and asked where the 
paintings were ; Meffitt said they were locked up; think 
Sprague accused Mrs. Meffitt of having a pistol; am sure 
she had none ; saw her down stairs and after she came up 
stairs, and saw no pistol or weapon of any kind about her. 

L. B. AHDERSOK 

Signed and sworn, August 5, 1873, before— 

JAS. G. LO¥G, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of John T. Price. 

John T. Price, being duly sworn, says: He is in the 
livery business on Sixth street, Washington; does not 
know Constables Gordon and Sprague; never had any¬ 
thing to do with them in any shape or form ; never had 



) 


any conversation with them about the purchase of a skel¬ 
eton wagon. Meffitt never ottered to sell me the wagon, 
nor any skeleton wagon; and I do not know anything 
whatever of the difficulties between Meffitt, Coe, Gordon 
and Sprague. 

JOHN T. PRICE. 


Sworn and subscribed before me, this 1st day of August, 

1873. 


JAS. G. LONG, 


Chairman. 


Testimony of Louis Behrens. 

Louis Behrens, being duly sworn, says: I reside at 
1624 Sixth street; I was called upon one evening—9th 
of June, I think—by Mr. Ebeling, at my house, to come 
down in town and take charge of some furniture, for 
which I was trustee; left my work and came to Keese’s 
office; there was a load of furniture coming down the 
street. Keese told me there was a load of furniture I 
must take charge of as trustee, and take it to Latimer & 
Cleary’s auction store. Lacey stepped up, and forbid me 
to take it; told him, if I was trustee for it, I was the only 
party had a right to it; told the driver to take it to Lat¬ 
imer & Cleary’s; Lacey stopped him ; spoke to Mrs. Solo¬ 
mons, who consented to have it go there ; she is the prin¬ 
cipal for whom I held the trust, as I understood that day 
from Mr. Keese. Mrs. Solomons, Lacey, and I went to 
Latimer & Cleary ’s; Lacey told me there was some more 
furniture, of which he would give me the direction; he 
(Lacey) would send Mrs. Solomons home; he did not want 
her to go with me. Lacey gave me the direction to a 
house on K street; I went there and obtained the balance 





of the furniture, and deposited it at Latimer k Cleary’s, 
for which I took a receipt, as follows: 

Louis Behrens, trustee for Mrs. Solomons : cane-seat rocker, 2 hall 
chairs, 2 bedsteads, lounge, 2 washstands, bureau, 2 wooden-seat chairs, 

4 cane-seat chairs, 2 pillows, toilet set, pot, pan, and kettle, 4 mattresses, 
cook stove. 

(Signed) LATIMER & CLEARY, 

per Hadley. 

Some two or three days later, saw Mrs. Solomons at her 
house ; she told me she knew where there was more of the 
furniture, for which I was trustee ; she was going to get 
an officer to go for it; told her I was the proper one to 
go for it, and I would go, if she would tell me where it 
was; but that she could send an officer, if she preferred; 
that I had plenty of work home, and had not the time to 
run around anyhow ; w T as made trustee without my knowl¬ 
edge, and would not have been there, if I had known it. 
I heard nothing more of the matter until the replevy suits 
were over; was then called on by Lawyer Carrington and 
Constable Lacey ; Lacey was up at the corner, and Mr. 
Carrington at my door. Carrington said, “Mr. Behrens, I 
want you to sign a bond for Mrs. Solomons, you being the 
trusteethink it was a bond to replevy some carpet; 
told Carrington I would not sign the bond until I had 
looked into the matter further; that these cases had been 
carried on by two or three lawyers and two or three 
constables, and now they had got themselves in a scrape, 
and wanted to pull the trustee in to help them out; he 
said the law would compel me to sign it. I agreed to call 
at his office next morning; which I did. I then told Mr. 
Carrington that I would sign the bond for Mrs. Solomons 
if I would incur no responsibility for suits ; he asked me 
then what I wanted; told him an indemnifying bond 
from Mrs. Solomons ; this they refused to give, and I 
refused to sign the bond. Mr. Keese gave me this paper, 
(exhibiting a list of property,) on the day when I took 


charge of the first load of property, saying that it was a 
list of the property for which I was trustee, and told me 
to do all in my power to recover the same for Mrs. Solo¬ 
mons. I asked Mr. Keese if there was any one else had 
anything to do with it; he said, “No;” to go on, and do 
what he and Mrs. Solomons told me to do, and he would 
see me all right; and I did do all in my power to carry 
out these instructions, as far as I went; they did not let 
me know of their transactions. Mrs. Solomons, as I after¬ 
wards learned, went and got some of the property without 
my®knowledge. When I went after the last lot of property 
on K street, Solomons was about to hire a wagon to bring 
it in ; Mr. Keese told me to bring it in my wagon, and 
save Solomons seventy-five cents or a dollar, which I did. 
When I promised to call at Carrington’s office, I also 
promised to see Mrs. Solomons, which I did, and told her 
what they wanted of me ; also told her that she had gone 
forward in the matter thus far without me, but now wanted 
to pull me into it; but that I was willing to aid her, if 
she would give me responsible security that I should lose 
nothing by it. She said she knew nothing about it; that 
the case was no interest to her whatever; left, and 
reported this to Carrington, who said he was very much 
surprised. I have had no conversation whatever on this 
subject with Justice Keese, since the day I took charge of 
the property, except once, when I told of the interview 
with Carrington, and said I was sorry I had ever had any¬ 
thing to do with the matter; he said, Well; I put you 
there, and I want you to do all you can to recover the 
property—to do what is right. A gentleman told me 
that Mr. Keese wanted me to come down here to-day. 
This paper (before referred to) is the identical paper that 
Keese handed to me, in the presence of Lacey, the day that 
I took charge of the property, and has been in my possession 
ever since ; Mr. Keese has not seen it since, until to-day. 


00 


I 

When Mr. Ebeling came for me to come down to take 
charge of the property, he told me that Mr. Keese sent 
him. I have had no conversation with Lacey about this 
property since the time that I took charge of it, that I re¬ 
member of; had some words with him about Mr. Keese, 
but do not recollect what it was. 


Cross-examined by Constable Lacey. 

This is the first paper given me by Keese; it is the 

paper you saw me have at Latimer & Cleary’s, and is the 

only paper I ever had in the matter, excepting the receipt 

of Latimer & Clearv. Mr. O’Neal went with me and 

*/ 

showed me the house; when I went after the second lot of 
furniture, O’Neal offered to go with me; you did not 
tell me that the furniture was at O’Neal’s house and 
that he (O’Neal) would go with you to get it; Mr. Keese 
did not advise me not to replevy the carpet; I asked 
at Latimer & Cleary’s what all this constable business 
was about; I am the son-in-law of Justice Keese; I 
have not been advised, either by Keese or O’Neal, con¬ 
cerning my testimony. When*I went to O’Neal’s house, I 
asked for the lady of the house, who opened every door 
for me, and I compared my list with all the furniture in 
the house, and had no trouble at all. I did not see a lot 
of Brussels carpet when there; afterwards heard that 
some carpet had been taken to Mrs. Solomons’ house. 


L. BEHRENS. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 1st day of 
August, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 


Chairman. 


Testimony of D. W. Davis. 

D. W. Davis, 621 K street, being duly sworn, deposes 
and says: That a judgment was rendered in his favor by 
Justice Moulton, sometime in June last, for fifteen dol- 



lars or thereabout; that Constable Clark, immediately 
upon the rendition of said judgment, attached the same, 
and cited this deponent to appear before Justice Clark to 
answer to a claim of nine dollars and fifty cents; that 
this deponent appeared before said Clark, and confessed 
judgment for said amount; and that Justice Clark ren¬ 
dered judgment for nine dollars and fifty cents debt, and 
about eight dollars costs, the whole judgment being for 
upwards of seventeen dollars ; which costs this deponent 
verily believes, and is informed, are exorbitant and illegal. 

D. W. DAVIS. 

Subscribed and sworn to, this 4th day of August, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Rufus Smith . 

Rufus Smith, being duly sworn, says : He is a produce 
merchant, 925 Louisiana avenue; that sometime in No¬ 
vember, 1872, sold a bill of goods, amounting to about 
$15, to one James Cook, in the neighborhood of Sixth 
and L streets, to be paid for on delivery. Goods were 
delivered on Saturday, when he put the boy ofl‘ until 
Monday; failed to pay, after promising to pay from 
day to day, for about two weeks, when he agreed, in pres¬ 
ence of witnesses, that if he did not pay at 3 o’clock of 
that day, this deponent was at liberty to remove sufficient 
of his (Cook’s) stock to satisfy said debt. At that hour, 
deponent called, and not receiving the money, removed 
the goods and fixtures from Cook’s store, that were ap¬ 
praised at some $13, at retail prices, Cook in the mean¬ 
time having removed a portion of his stock, in accordance 
with our agreement. Shortly after, this deponent received 
notice from Lawyer O. D. Barrett that he was instructed to 
sue this deponent for trespass on Cook’s premises; saw Bar- 



rett, and explained, when he refused to bring suit. Cook 
then sued this deponent for 852, for the alleged value of 
property taken as above described; deponent appeared in 
answer, proved the case as stated above, and put in, as an 
offset, his bill of fifteen dollars; obtained a jury trial. 
The jury reduced Cook's bill to $20.50, and found that my 
account must be deducted, leaving about five dollars due 
from this deponent to Cook. This deponent was greatly 
surprised, a few days later, by Constable King's presenting 
an execution against him for the full amount of $20.50 
debt, and $2.40 costs ; deponent then went to Bates' office, 
and took judgment against Cook for amount of his bill of 
$15; Cook in the meanwhile had confessed judgment in 
favor of John S. Raeburn for 812.12, and Raeburn, at the 
suggestion of Bates & King, had attached the overplus of 
this deponent's judgment due to Cook, to secure Rae¬ 
burn’s debt, and agreed that this deponent and Raeburn 
should settle the difference between themselves. And 
this deponent further says: That while this deponent and 
Raeburn were in Constable King's presence, endeavoring 
to get at a settlement from the papers, said King snatched 
and destroyed the memoranda; and the matter has never 
been adjusted to this day. And this deponent verily 
believes that said Bates and King did conspire together to 
make bills of costs out of said Raeburn and this deponent. 
This deponent paid $10.50 costs. 

RUFUS SMITH. 

Subscribed and sworn before me, August 4, 1873. 

JAS. G. LOKG, 
Chairman . 


Testimony of John S. Raeburn. 

John S. Raeburn, being duly sworn, says: That he 
heard the affidavit of Rufus Smith, and that the facts set 
forth therein are true to the best of his knowledge. And 
8 



he further says: That he was induced to pay $4.50 costs 
upon the representation of said Bates and King that there 
was money enough coming from Smith to satisfy this de¬ 
ponent's debt and costs. And this deponent says: That 
he has made several attempts to obtain an explanation or 
settlement of this matter from both Justice Bates and 
Constable King, but could get no satisfaction from either 
party; and he verily believes that the sole object of those 
officers in the premises was to make their costs and fees; 
which they did make, to the amount of $10.50 from Smith, 
and $4.50 from this deponent. 

JOHK S. EAEBUKK . 

Subscribed and sworn, August 4, 1873. 

JAS. G. LOKG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Mayor M. Lulley. 

Major M. Lulley, being duly sworn, says: That in 
October last he hired a house, on Fifth street, from H. 
Bergling, at $20 per month, and paid the rent faithfully, 
taking receipts therefor, until sometime in May last, 
when a heavy rain rendered the house untenantable, the 
plastering having fallen down and the foundation at one 
side caved in; notified landlord that house must be 
repaired, or would not pay rent; made June payment, and 
then renewed notice that would pay no more rent till 
house was put in repair ; nothing was done to it, and 
July rent demanded, and refused on the ground that the 
house was not fit to live in. Mrs. Lulley is in very in¬ 
different health of both body and mind, occasioned by 
the loss of a favorite son and all the effects of the family, 
by fire, a few years since. She was made much worse by 
the rough and discourteous service of a notice to quit the 
premises in seven‘days, by Constable Shreve, which had 
been issued by Justice Thompson on the complaint of 



Bergling. Shrove threatened the halt-crazed woman, in 
the absence of her husband, that if she did not accept ser¬ 
vice ot the notice, he would tack the same upon the house. 
Upon the trial, deponent claimed that he was entitled to 


thirty days notice ; that he was ready to pay the rent if 
the house was put in t.enantable condition ; tendered the 
money in open court upon those conditions, which were 
not accepted ; but some German witnesses, placed on the 
stand, who could not speak a word of English, but cried, 
“yah ! yah !” to the words put into their mouths by the 
constable (Shreve) who conducted the case for Bergling, 
such as that they “ had heard Lulley agree to pay rent for 
the house, if it tumbled down, and that he would build it 
up and keep it in repair at his own expense.” Deponent 
objected to this, and demanded an interpreter; two were 
named, doing business in the vicinity, Peiser and King, 
both of whom were objected to by Bergling, because they 
were Jews and Lulley was also a Jew. The court allowed 
his objection, and the case went on without an interpreter; 
judgment of dispossession being given in favor of Berg¬ 
ling and against this deponent, who next appealed to the 
Board of Health to pass upon the condition of the house. 
Inspector Kelley was sent to examine the premises, and 
condemned the house as a nuisance. Deponent then en¬ 
gaged a house on Pennsylvania avenue, but could not get 
possession for a day or two. When the seven days were 
up, Constables Shreve and Gibbons came to deponent’s 
house to put him out; told them he would go next day ; 
had engaged a house, but could not get possession till 
next day, and asked them to wait. Ko; they would make 
$6 if they put him out, and nothing, if they did not. 
They decided to put him and his effects, and his afflicted 
wife, mother of ten children, into the street. Constable 
Sbreve, who is also a house agent, now told this deponent 
that he could rent him a nice house, on K street, for $25 


per month, in advance. The day was progressing, his 
wife was sick in the street; he would go and look at it. 
Shreve said he would not have time; he must get wagons 
to move him, while he (Shreve) would draw up the lease; 
it was all right. He got the wagons, signed the lease, 2 nd 
paid the money; but afterwards saw that he had bound 
himself to a seven davs’ notice in said lease, and the 
house was not fit to live in; not worth ten dollars a 
month. On the way, a heavy shower of rain came down 
and ruined the most of his furniture, including a hun¬ 
dred dollar sewing machine. Shreve has since advised 
this deponent to bring suit against Bergling for damages, 
and let him (Shreve) manage the suit; he could get a 
hundred dollars ; but this deponent declined. Deponent 
met his counsel, H. M. Yorris, on the street, a few days 
after the trial, and asked, “What is the news?” he said, 
“Lullej", you had better pay; we can do nothing with that 
magistrate’s row upon Seventh street.” 

M. DUDLEY. 

Sworn before me, this 6th day of August, 1873. 

JAS. O. LONGr, 

Chairman. 


Testimony of William Thompson. 

William Thompson, being duly sworn, deposes and 
says: That he is a Justice of the Peace in the District of 
Columbia, and has been serving in that capacity during 
the last thirty-six years, having been first nominated by 
President Jackson. On the 15th of July, a summons was 
issued on the complaint of II. Bergling, commanding 
Major M. Dulley to appear in seven days at the court of 
this deponent, and show cause why he should not be re¬ 
moved from premises occupied by him, for refusal to pay. 



rent in accordance with his agreement with said Bergling. 
Said summons was placed in the hands of Constable Shreve 
for service, who made due return that the proper service 
had been made. On the 23d of July, the defendant, Lul- 
ley, appeared with his counsel, Mr. Xorris, for trial; the 
plaintiff, Bergling, appeared with two witnesses, Adam 
dPleichert, and John Jack, who spoke intelligible English, 
and both swore that they were present when the defen¬ 
dant agreed to hire the premises, Ko. 612 Fifth street, 
from him, Bergling, and pay the rent of $20 dollars per 
month, monthly in advance, or quit the premises upon 
seven days notice. It was suggested that interpreters were 
necessary, but this deponent being able to understand the 
witnesses, determined that no interpreter was necessai^y ; 
heard some remarks about proposed interpreters being 
Jews; and this deponent stated that he made no distinc¬ 
tions with witnesses on account of creed, color, or country. 
The case was fully heard, and judgment reserved. The 
next day, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff*, 
Bergling. On the 30t,h of July, seven days after judgment 
was entered, a writ of restitution was issued upon the 
request of plaintiff*, and not executed by Shreve until 
the next day; so it appears that instead of only eighteen 
hours, the defendant, Lulley, had eight days after judg¬ 
ment in which to prepare for removal or to appeal from 
my decision, if he so decided. The defendant, Lulley, gave 
notice of intention to appeal, and I allowed him tive days 
in which to file his bond ; no bond having been filed, the 
writ was issued as before stated. On the 31st, Constable 
Shreve made return that he had executed the writ. 

' W. THOMPSON. 

Sworn and subscribed before me, this 6th day of August, 
1873 

JAS. G. LONG, 
'Chairman. 


Testimony of Charles Throve. 

Charles Siireve, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That he is a constable, and has served in that capacity 
about live years. On the 15th July, 1873, this deponent 
received a seven days’ summons from Justice Thompson, 
to be served on M. Lulley, 612 Fifth street; went there, 
and did not tind him at home; Mrs. Lulley came to the 
door; asked her what time her husband would be in; she 
did not know; it might be ten or eleven o’clock at night 
before he came ; what was my business; told her 1 had a 
seven days’ summons for him to appear before Justice 
Thompson, for his failure to pay the rent; left copy with 
her,and she said that she would give it to him. She did 
not at first agree to receive it, and asked me if I knew 
her husband; I said, yes; and she then took it; did not 
threaten to tack it on the door; no such conversation 
occurred between this deponent and Mrs. Lulley. Two 
or three days after, met Lulley on the street, and asked 
him if he received the notice ; said he did, and would at¬ 
tend to it. On trial day I was present; asked witnesses, 
Pleichert and Jack, if they were present when Lulley 
hired the premises; they said, yes; then they related the 
conversation that took place on that occasion to Justice 
Thompson; they both spoke intelligible English; asked 
them no further questions ; did not object to having an 
interpreter ; Bergling did not objcet to having one, but 
offered to go for one, if desired. On the morning of the 
30th.of July, between 8 and 9 o’clock, received from Jus¬ 
tice Thompson a writ of restitution commanding me to 
place Bergling in immediate possession of the premises . 
called at the house at 9 o’clock in the morning, and found 
the doors and windows barred and fastened; rang the bell; 
Mrs. Lulley looked out the second story window, and 
asked what was wanted ; told me to get away from there, 
her husband was not at home. Told her, if her husband 


was not there, to please to come down herself a moment, 
as I wished to speak to her; she said, no; told her if she 
would come down, I would not eject her at that time, but 
would wait until I saw her husband ; she came down and 
opened the door, and I read the writ of dispossession to 
her; told her to tell her husband that I would not eject 
them that day, but that he must be out of the house the 
next morning by 9 o’clock, or I would have to execute the 
writ; left, and called next morning, accompanied by Con¬ 
stable Gibbons; found Lulley at home ; had a portion of 
his goods packed ready for moving; said he had no place 
to go to that day; told him that I had given him as long 
as I could give him ; Bergling demanded possession of his 
house, and that I must go to work and dispossess him. He 
asked me if there was no way to stop proceedings any 
longer; told him only through an order from Mr. Berg¬ 
ling, who could, if he would; he asked me to give him 
one hour to go to see Bergling; did so ; he was gone an 
hour and a half, and returned with Mr. Bergling, who de¬ 
manded immediate possession of the house. I took hold 
of some of the things to put them out, when Mrs. Lulley re¬ 
marked to her husband, “perhaps I might let him have a 
house, as I had some for rent;” he said, “Ho; as I was 
putting him out, he did not think that I would rent him 
a house;” told him that rather than see him on the street, 
I would rent him a brick house for $25 per month, if he 
would pay me monthly in advance and sign my contract 
to leave upon seven days’ notice upon failure to pay the 
rent; would rent it to him one month or longer on those 
terms, if he wished. The house has never been rented for 
less than $25 per month. He was satisfied to take the 
house; the lease was drawn, signed, read,and witnessed; 
he paid me one month in advance; took a copy of the 
agreement; got wagons, and commenced moving ; nothing 
was said about looking at the house ; saw the house when 


64 


he went with the first load, and made no objections to it 
when he came back; he sent out and got a watermelon ; 
told the boy to get a good one; he cut it, and told us to 
help ourselves. Mrs. Lulley also told me that we were 
gentlemen; not roughs, like some officers. The removal was 
completed without difficulty, and the keys turned over to 
me with apparent good feeling and entire satisfaction; no 
complaint has since been made by Lulley against the 
house rented from me, except that the hydrant was out of 
order; and that I have ordered repaired. There was 
nothing passed between us about entering a suit against 
Bergling for damages, and allowing me to manage it* for 
him. Bergling’s house on Fifth street was in a bad con¬ 
dition, floor sunk and ceiling fallen in; did not hear Lul- 
ley agree to pay the rent if Bergling would put the house 
in repair; did not hear any such tender of money for the 
rent made in court during the trial; heard him say that 
the house was in a dilapidated and untenantable condi¬ 
tion. 


CHARLES S. SITREVE. 

Sworn and subscribed before me, this 6th day of 


August, 1873. 


' JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of John T. C. Clark. 

John T. C. Clark, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That he is a Justice of the Peace in the District of Co¬ 
lumbia. On the 8th of May last, a suit was brought be¬ 
fore me by James Lockhead, against David W. Davis, to 
recover $9.60 for merchandise and gas fixtures, return¬ 
able May 10. Defendant asked continuance until 14th 
May, which was granted ; defendant felt satisfied that he 
could arrange the matter with Lockhead. Defendant 
came in on the 14th, and manifested much indignation 



against. Mr. Lockhead, and wanted Mr." James, a clerk 
for Lockhead, summoned; exhibited much defiance until 
James made his appearance, when he suddenly subsided, 
and confessed judgment for $9.60 and costs, $1.25, making 
$10.85 as full amount of judgment. [Papers and docket 
shown.] On the 15th May, Mr. Lockhead having made 
oath that said judgment was due and not satisfied, 
this deponent issued a writ of attachment to recover the 
sum of $10.85 debt. The attachment was served upon 
Charles W. Perkins, garnishee of defendant, who was 
served with copies of the judgment writ, with interrog¬ 
atories, returnable on the 4th June, who answered under 
oath that he had in his hands the sum of $15, due the 
defendant; which said sum was condemned for the use of 
the plaintiff, to satisfy said judgment and costs, out of 
which laid sum $4.15 only was for costs, the original debt 
having been $ L0.85, none of which has to this date been 
satisfied ; and the only costs which this deponent or the 
constable have received is $1, paid by the plaintiff. The 
costs for original suit were: For summons, 25 cents ; ser¬ 
vice of same, 25 cents ; confession of judgment, 25 cents ; 
subpoena of witness, 25 cents ; service of same, 25 cents ; 
total, $1.25. Costs of attachment: Writ, $4; service of 
same, $2 ; commission, at 5 per cent., 50 cents ; total, $6.50. 

JOHN T. C. CLARK. 

Sworn to before me, this 5th day of August, 1873. 

JAS. Gf. LONG!. 

Chairman . 


Testimony of Sarah Washington. 

Sarah Washington, 1514 0 street, being duly sworn, 
deposes and says: That in June, 1869, Justice Don¬ 
aldson rendered judgment against this deponent for a 
debt of the father of this deponent, in favor of one Canby ; 
execution was placed in the hands of Constable Joshua 
9 



Parker, who came to the residence of this deponent in her 
absence; demanded the key to the parlor; was told that 
deponent had carried the key with her. Parker then forced 
the lock of the parlor door, and took therefrom pictures, 
which cost some $34, to satisfy a judgment of $11 or $12: 
and this deponent never received any notice of sales of 
of said pictures, nor any return of said property or sales 
thereof, and does not know whether said Canby, the 
plaintiff to said suit, ever received satisfaction for his 
judgment. And this deponent further says: That Con¬ 
stable Parker was very rough in his conduct towards the 
sister of this deponent, taking hold of her and roughly 
pushing her from the door of the room into which he 
wished to force his way; and that said sister, being in 
delicate situation of health at the time, was seriously 
injured by said rough treatment, so that she was quite ill 
for several days from the effects thereof. 

her 

SARAH X WASHINGTON. 

mark 


Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 5th day of 
August, 1873. 


JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Constable George T. Gibbons. 

George T. Gibbons, constable, being duly sworn, deposes 
and says: That he has heard that portion of the testimony 
of Constable Shreve read which relates to the execution of 
the writ of dispossession of Major M. Lulley from the 
house of IL Bergling, No. 612 Fifth street, and that he 
fully corroborates the same in every particular as true, 
and a faithful statement of the facts. 

GEO. T. GIBBONS. 



Subscribed and sworn to 
August, 1873. 


before me, this 6th day of 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Henry Bergliny. 

Henry Bergling, merchant tailor, 1134 Seventh street, 
being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is the owner 
of the house No. 612 Fifth street; that on the 14th of 
October, 1872, he rented said house to M. Lulley at $20 
per month in advance; that in case of failure to pay the 
rent, he would leave upon seven days’ notice* that he 
would keep the house in the same condition, as to repairs, 
while he occupied the same, as it was when he rented it. 
This agreement was made verbally between us at my shop 
on Seventh street, in the presence of two of my men, Adam 
Pleichert and John Jack. Lulley moved into the house, 
and paid his rent—not always in advance, but by install¬ 
ments sometimes along through the month—until the 
14th June. After this, he put me off from day to day, 
saying that he expected money from New York, and would 
pay me ; never told me that he would not pay me till I put 
the house in repair; told me the ceiling had fallen down, 
and wished me to have it repaired ; told him I would have 
it repaired if he paid the rent. He never gave me notice 
that he would pay no more rent until the repairs were 
made, but always promised to pay me the rent the next 
day. He did not pay for the month of June until the 
14th of Julv, when another month was due; demanded 
my rent; he did not pay me; went to Justice Thompson 
and swore out the seven days’ summons or notice, accord¬ 
ing to our agreement; on the trial, appeared with my two 
witnesses, Adam Pleichert and John Jack, who testified 
to the agreement between Lulley and myself, when Lulley 
rented the house. The agreement was made between us 



68 


verbally in the German language, which we all understood. 
They understood English sufficiently to testify in that 
language as to what was transacted in the German. 
Something was said by some one about having an infer- 
preter; and I was willing to have Mr. King, but the Justice 
said no interpreter was necessary; did not hear Lulley 
make any tender of the money for the rent to the Court 
during the trial, if I would put the house in repair; got 
judgment for the possession of the house on the 23d July, 
and obtained a writ of restitution on the 30th July; paid 
Justice Thompson $3.20 costs, and paid Constable Shreve 
$10 to execute the writ; paid him the day he delivered 
the keys. 

H. BERGLIKG. 

* 

Sworn to before me, this 6th day of August, 1873. 

JAS. G. LOKG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Geo. N. Barber. 

Geo. K. Barber, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That a horse, wagon, and harness were taken from him 
on the 31st May by one John Bash, and secreted, so that 
it took sometime to find them ; called on Justice Mills, who 
advised me to arrest him (Bash) on a state’s warrant for 
grand larceny; paid him a dollar, and obtained the war¬ 
rant; proceeded near the spot where the property was 
said to be ; called a policeman to serve the warrant; was 
sent from seventh precinct, at 10 o'clock at night, to Bal- . 
timore depot to get an officer; found two, who went 
with me to corner Eleventh street and C, southeast, where 
the property was partly secreted; routed the people out, 
and finally found Bash and the property, but not with¬ 
out threatening the man with a search warrant. The offi¬ 
cers took the horse and Bash in custody, and I took the 



wagon amd harness to ray house. Next morning appeared 
at the police court at the hour set, and found the case had 
been dismissed on Dash’s own statement, before my evi¬ 
dence was taken, and the property ordered to be returned 
to him; then went to Justice R. V. Hughes, and swore 
out a writ of replevin against Lieut. Kelley, of the Metro¬ 
politan police ; paid Hughes $5; went with Constable 
Kimmell to serve the papers. Kelley refused to obey the 
writ; returned to Hughes, who then said he had no juris¬ 
diction as against Kelley, and made out another writ 
against Dash, for which I paid him $3 more, although I 
insisted that they should have been in lieu of the others; 
went with Constable C. A. Kimmell to recover the 
property. While we had been waiting for the papers, 
Lieut. Kelly had gone to my house with his reserves, and 
forced an entrance through my bar-room to my private 
sleeping room, against the remonstrances of myself, 
wife, and servants, and took the harness therefrom, and 
delivered the wagon and harness to Dash; also broke 
open the back gate, which was securely locked and nailed. 
This was on the 2d of June. On Wednesday, June 4th, 
went with Kimmell to the toll-gate, and recovered the 
property, and brought it into the city, when Kimmell 
made up his costs at $7.53, which I paid, and asked for 
possession of the property, which he refused to give me. 
Next day, made a second demand, after consulting coun¬ 
sel, Lawyer Carrington. He then gave me an order for 
the horse, and I had to pay or become responsible for the 
bill. On 21st June, case was removed from Hughes to 
Walter, and heard ; and I got judgment for property and 
costs; I paid Walter $1; told Kimmell I thought he had 
charged me too much ; said he had not; only charged me 
one dollar for extra time, and refused to give me back 
one cent; then went for Justice Hughes, who offered me 
two dollars, which I would not have, for I felt that there 


TO 


was more than that properly coming to me. My whole 
expenses in this case, including costs, counsel fees, stable 
bill, etc., were $41.08. The property was sold at Wall’s 
bazaar at the very best advantage, sometime after, and 
only'brought $38.80; commissions, 10 per cent. $8.08; 
leaving a net sum of $35.72; so that if I had never tried 
to recover it, I would have been $5.31 better off pecuni¬ 
arily, to say nothing of the loss of six days' time and 
various incidental expenses. 

GEO. 1ST. BARBER. 

Sworn to, July 31, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of B. Chambers. 

B. Chambers, being duly sworn, says: That on or 
about the 8th day of March, 1873, I had taken from 
me one horse and wagon, and sundry other things, 
by Constable C. A. Kimmell. I was absent from home at 
the time, the plaintiff having told me he would delay until 
the following Monday. I do not know that there was any 
unlawful act at the time of levying, except that unneces¬ 
sary violence was used in breaking open my doors 
inside the house, when entrance had not been denied; 
but the family were in the act of procuring the key for 
Kimmell; he not waiting, forced the door. Since this levy, 
the horse and wagon have been sold, and brought two 
hundred and tifty-tive dollars, ($255,) I believe, and the 
debt for which it was taken was $47 about. I have been- 
told that some attachments were served against the pro¬ 
ceeds. I have repeatedly asked the constable, Kimmell, 
for a statement of what be done with my money—the 
$255 ; I asked him twice in the street to have it ready, 
and I would come for it. When I went, he put me off, 
saying be was yery busy; to oome again. I went again 



71 


on Tuesday last, and he said come at B o’clock; I went; 
he was out; I left a note to haye it ready Wednesday 
morning. I went then; he made more excuses, and asked 
me to come to day; I have been to him, and he has 
again put me off till Saturday. Meanwhile, I have asked 
one of the creditors if he received his money, and he says, 
‘‘Ko; none of it; but I saw Kimmell, and he told me to 
come to see him; that he had $3 or $4 dollars for me.” 
This debt was sixty-one dollars ($61.) 

On another occasion, I had some goods to be sold at 
auction; this same constable attached the proceeds in the 
hands of Messrs. Duncansori, Dowling & Co., about $22, I 
believe, at the suit of T. Sappington, who never received 
any of the money, as he informs me, but was offered by 
Kimmell $1.50, which he refused, and still holds the 
claim against me. Kimmell tells me that he cannot make 
me any return of that, as he gave the papers to the plain¬ 
tiff. I am endeavoring to get my affairs into such a con¬ 
dition as will enable me to start my business again; hence, 
am anxious to know that my effects taken from me when 
I was closed up at the corner of 5th and H streets have 
been applied to the payment of my debts ; T. Sappington 
can be found, if it is necessary. 

B. CHAMBERS, 

811 K street, between 8th and 9th. 

Subscribed before ine, this 7th day of August, 1873. 

JAS. G. LOKG, 
Chainnan. 


Testimony of John Lester . 

John Lester, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That 
he resides on Four-and-a-half street, between L and K 
south, Ko. 910 ; that Justice Simon Joseph summoned 
him to appear before him, (Joseph,) on the 9th of April, 
1873, to answer the complaint of Jane Showers, for $10 



72 


damages, for saying that the smallpox was in her house. 
Summons was served liy Constable Thomas ; appeared 
before Justice Joseph at 4 o’clock on the afternoon of the 
9th April, with two witnesses ,Edward Johnson, white, 
and Jane Lester, colored, to prove that the smallpox was 
in her house and that there was a yellow flag at the door. 
Justice Joseph took the testimony of Jane Showers, after 
reading a note that she brought to him ; she said that the 
smallpox was there, but not on her premises ; she occu¬ 
pied two rooms ; she thought this deponent had damaged 
her $10 by reporting that the smallpox was in her house. 
Justice Joseph took my testimony, but refused to exam¬ 
ine my witnesses, saying that he did not care about the 
witnesses; he would give judgment against me to make 
me hold my mouth ; rendered judgment against me for 
$7.75. About three days after, Constable Thomas came 
to levy on my pictures and furniture to satisfy the execu¬ 
tion. I paid him $2.50, and took his receipt; afterwards 
paid $5.25 to Justice Joseph, who refused to give me a 
receipt for the money. < 

JOHN LESTER. 

Subscribed and sworn before me, this 7tli day of 
August, 1873. 

W. E. VERMILLION, 
Chairman pro tem. 


Testimony of Cornelius McAuliff. 

Cornelius McAuliff, being duly sworn, deposes and 
says: That he resides on K street, between 27th and 28th 
streets northwest; is a small grocer; in April, 1873, kept 
a small grocery and liquor store in the house of Lew Con¬ 
ners, on 27th street, between I and K streets northwest; 
rented the premises from Conners at $11 per month; to be 
paid as wanted, partly in trade—whatever he wanted in 
that way—and the residue in money. About the last of 




i 



March, Conners called for $1.50, balance of rent due for the 
month of February and all of the month of March; he 
was under the influence of liquor, and I refused to pay 
him because I thought he was not in a fit condition to 
receive money; had always paid my rent to Conners; 
had lived there about nine months; took receipts from 
^Conners usually. On the first of April, an agent of Mr. 
Bigelow called on me, and presented a paper signed by 
Conners, authorizing me to pay the rent to Bigelow; said 
Bigelow held a mortgage on the house, and. that Conners 
was running the property in debt and neglecting to pay 
the interest, and forbid me to pay any more rent to Con¬ 
ners ; told him Conners was there the night before for 
the rent, and I would pay him no more rent till I knew 
who was my landlord; the house was out of repair; and I 
told him I would not pay the rent until the repairs were 
made ; the agent advised me that he would act in like 
manner; shortly after was summoned by officer Maryman 
to appear before Justice Martin, and show cause why I 
would not pay rent to Mr. Bigelow or quit the premises ; 
appeared on return day, and gave the reasons stated above; 
Bigelow was there; Martin told me that Bigelow was the 
proper man to receive the rent; Bigelow told Martin to 
let the matter lay over till he saw him again ; Bigelow 
went to see the premises, and agreed with me to send 
up lumber for the repairs, if I would pay the carpenter 
out of the rent. The lumber did not come, and I heard no 
more from the matter till the 28th of April, when Con¬ 
stable Maryman came to my place with a writ of dispos¬ 
session, and removed my stock and family (wife and four 
children, the youngest three months old) into the street, 
in the rain; goods and family got wet; the youngest child 
was taken sick, and died shortly after; half my goods 
were stolen while I was seeking a shelter for them, and 
the rest damaged by exposure. Bigelow was present before 

10 


74 


the dispossession commenced, and told the constable not 
to put me out if his process was not lawful; Maryman 
replied that he had a writ of restitution that made it 
lawful enough for him, and went on and put out my 
things; had no notice whatever that any judgment was 
rendered against me until Maryman appeared with the 
writ. 

CORNELIUS McAULIFF. 


Sworn and subscribed 
August, 1873. 


before me, this 8th day of 

JAS. Gr. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Constable Maryman. 

Horatio R. Maryman, constable, being duly sworn, 
deposes and says: That sometime in April, 1873, he 
served a seven days’ notice and a summons upon Corne¬ 
lius McAuliff, to show cause why he should not pay his 
rent or quit the premises. The papers were issued by 
Justice Martin on complaint of Mr. Bigelow, as agent 
for Luke Conners, about a week or ten days afterwards. 
On the 28th day of April, 1873, Justice Martin handed 
me a writ of restitution commanding me to put Mr. 
Bigelow in possession of the premises; asked Mr. Bigelow 
to go with me to receive possession; also took a police¬ 
man with me to see that there was no violation of law, 
as Mr. Bigelow had asked me to be particular not to do 
any illegal act. Arriving at McAulifFs, Mr. Bigelow told 
him if he would pay the rent, he (Bigelow) would pay 
the costs. McAuliff refused to pay the rent until the 
house was repaired; you know you agreed to fix the 
house. Bigelow again cautioned me to execute the writ 
legally; told him the writ was sufficient authority for 
me; told McAuliffe that he had better remove his o-oods 
and effects, or I should be obliged to do it for him; 



showed him the writ, which he took in his hand and ap¬ 
peared to read; said he would not move or go out with¬ 
out thirty days’ notice; was very obstinate, and appeared 
to have been drinking; asked him if I indulged him till 
next day, would he be out then ; said, ‘\No would not go 
without thirty days’ notice. This was about the middle 
of the day, and the weather was fair; employed three or 
four men, and exercised great care not to injure anything; 
goods consisted of a few liquors, in bottles, some provi¬ 
sions, two or three barrels of fish, coal, etc., and some 
little furniture. The removal occupied some four hours; 
there was an old horse and wagon; commenced to rain 
just before we got through with the removal; Mrs. Mc- 
Auliff disappeared with her child long before the rain 
commenced ; came back again without the child before 
we left; told McAuliff he had better move his goods 
away as we removed them from the house; said he did 
not wish to do so; he would sue Bigelow and this depo¬ 
nent for damages; got through the dispossession, and 
turned over the premises to Mr. Bigelow about five 
o’clock in the afternoon. 

H. R. MARYMAK 

Subscribed and sworn to, this 8th day of August, 1878. 

•TAS. GT. LOYGr, 

Chairman. 


Testimony of Otis Bigelow. 

Otis Bigelow, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That he is a banker at 648 D street northwest; had a 
mortgage on the premises on 27th street, belonging to 
Luke Conners, and occupied in April, 1873, by Cornelius 
McAuliff; and finding Conners to be improvident, and 
neglecting said premises, I took a power of attorney 
from Conners, sometime in March, both for his protection 
and my own, to act as his agent in caring for the property. 



McAuliff was notified of this about the 1st of April; had 
been summoned in Conners’name to appear before Justice 
Martin ; met him there. Here he made a fair and com¬ 
plete statement of his indebtedness for rent, upon which 
the justice rendered judgment; he agreed to pay the 
judgment, if I would repair the floor. I sent lumber there 
to repair the floor; and it was reported to me that he re¬ 
fused to move his goods from one room to another to let 
the carpenters make the repairs ; whereupon the lumber 
was stored in a vacant lot near by. Upon going there to 
remove him, I expostulated with him upon his conduct 
about the repairs, and told him that I had done every¬ 
thing I had agreed. He made frivolous excuses for not 
allowing the repairs to be made, and refused my offer to 
pay the costs, if he would pay the rent, although his wife 
entreated him to pay it and avoid trouble. I cautioned 
the officers and men to use every care in removing the 
goods. When it began to sprinkle, I called McAulifFs 
attention to an open barrel of flour, and urged him to 
put it under the wagon for shelter, which he refused to 
do; did not see much else there liable to damage from 
rain; afterwards ascertained that Mrs. McAulifFs parents 
lived but a few doors off on the same street, where she 
and her children could have sought shelter ; and also that 
McAuliff removed his goods subsequently into a house 
directly across the street, occupied by some friend or 
relative of his. Constable Maryman used no violence, but 
conducted himself with due civility and courtesy in the 
performance of his official acts. He offered to indulge 
McAuliff till the next day, if he would move ; which offer 
was refused. 


Subscribed and 
Angust, 1873. 


OTIS BIGELOW, 
sworn before me, this 8th day of 

J AS. G. LONG, 


Chairman. 


I 


( i 


Testimony of 0. KirmneU. 

0. Kimmell affirms that lie is a constable. In the 
case of Prof. M. 8. V. Heard, an attachment issued to en¬ 
force a landlord’s lien upon the property of a tenant who 
had absquatulated without the landlord’s knowledge, 
the plaintiff claimed $100 ; the defendant confessed j udg¬ 
ment for eighty ($80) dollars. Under that attachment, 
it was my duty to pursue that property wherever it 
might be found within the District of Columbia ; and 
being liable to the plaintiff if I did not use due diligence 
in doing so, I seized a piano, not exempt under the law 
of April, 1809, but a piano, concerning the liability of 
which under the attachment there could have been no 
possible doubt, as has been decided by the highest court in 
the District. I offered to await an hour for Heard to go 
to the Ebbitt House to get the money to settle with; but 
as he proposed to pay only $25, and as I had no authority 
to compromise the case for that or any other sum, the 
waiting arrangement was not agreed to, and the piano re¬ 
moved. 

O. KIMMELL. 


Affirmed before me, this 7th day of August, 1873. 

JAMES G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Robert Johnson. 

Kobert Johnson, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That he is a fireman. He employed Lawyer Williams 
(A. B.) as counsel, w ho afterwards associated with him F. 
P. Closs ; agreed to pay for the services of both gentle¬ 
men thirty dollars, which they finally agreed to take ; 



paid twenty dollars on account, for which Mr. Williams 
gave me the following receipt: 

Washington, May 19 , 1873 . 

Received of Robert Johnson ten dollars, on account of professional 
service, and ten dollars fur Mr F. P. Closs. 

(Signed) A. B. WILLIAMS. 

I told Mr. Williams that I would pay the other ten 
dollars as soon as I received my pay from the Fire De¬ 
partment. The next I heard of the matter was a few 
weeks later, when Constable Lacy called upon me and 
told me he had a summons for me to appear before Squire 
Clark on the next Tuesday, at the suit of Closs and Wil¬ 
liams. On Tuesday I met Squire Clark on Eleventh 
street, and asked him to continue the case till that day 
week; be consented; appeared, and found the case had 
been heard the day before. I complained that injustice 
had been done me, as it had been continued until to day. 
He agreed to re-open the case and fix it for Thursday ; 
showed him Williams’receipt, which he shoved away, and 
said he did not want to see it; went to Clark’s office at 
ten o’clock ; Justice said Closs and Williams wanted case 
put off till one o’clock, and told me to return at that 
hour; I said it was impossible, as it was inspection day, 
and the whole department was ordered on duty. He then 
gave a copy of subpoena to show to the foreman of the 
company ; he said it was only a civil suit, and would not 
let me off unless an officer came for me. Clark did not 
send an officer, but gave judgment against me for thirty 
dollars and costs. The same evening, about six o’clock, 
Constable Lacy came with an execution, and asked me 
where my horses were; told him they were at work ; 
said he would take them on the “fly went to supper ; 
on my return, found that Lacy had been there and taken 
some harness in my absence. Next day I went to Squire 
Clark and took an appeal to court; filed my bond ; and 
Lacy gave me an order for the return of my harness. 


This deponent has always been of the opinion that there 
existed a collusion between Closs, Williams, and the 
Justice and constable, to take snap judgment on me, and 
make me pay the thirty dollars in money rather than lose 
the work of my horses, when I really owed’only ten dol¬ 
lars. 


ROBERT JOHNSON. 

Sworn and subscribed to before m<^ this 18th day of 
August, 1873. 

JAS. G, LONG, 
Chairman. 


Justice Clark denies any and all improper motives and 
influences in the matter. The day of hearing was misun¬ 
derstood by defendant; he told him to obey the summons 
to the last hearing, and he would defend his action before 
the Board of Fire Commissioners. As he did not appear, 
of course judgment was given against him. 


Testimony of JR. V. Hughes. 

R. Y. Hughes, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That he is a Justice of the Peace; that he has read the 
testimony of Geo. N. Barber regarding the recovery of 
property from John Dash ; and that he did issue a writ 
of replevin, upon the application and oath of Barber, for 
the recovery of one grey horse from Lieutenant Kelly ; 
that his charge for the same was $5, of which he paid $2 
to the constable for service of the writ. Constable C. A. 
Kimmell made return of said writ, as follows: 

June 9 , 1873 . 

“Served as within directed, and gave a copy to Lieutenant John F. 
Kelly, after which received an order from Justice R. V. Hughes to 
release the property.” 

(Signed) C. A. KIMMELL, 

Constable. 



80 


This deponent was advised that he had no jurisdiction 
in the matter as it then stood, Lieut Kelley being simply 
custodian of property in the hands of the court; therefore 
gave an order to Constable Kimmell to return the writ 
to him. Almost immediately, Barber applied fora second 
writ of replevin against John P. Bash ; issued the same, 
and charged him only $3 dollars for it; $1.50 of which I 
paid for service. Constable C. A. Kimmell endorsed on 
this writ: “Served as within directed, and gave the 
defendant a copy. June 11, 1873.’' 

The case was ruled away from this deponent on affi¬ 
davit before Justice Walter on the 11th; and this depo¬ 
nent had nothing further to do with the affair. Some¬ 
time after, Barber complained to me that my costs were 
exorbitant, and said so much about the hardship of his 
case, that I offered to give him two dollars as a present; 
but not in the way of refunding fees, for I had not 
charged him as much as I was entitled to by the usage of 
other magistrates; the usual fee I understood to be $4 for 
the writ and $2 for service, besides 5 per centum upon 
the estimated order of the property replevied ; this would 
have entitled me to collect in advance about $8.50 upon 
each writ; but my practice has been to charge only $5, 
being $3 for the writ and $2 for service. 

ROBERT Y. HUGHES, L P. 

Sworn and subscribed before me, this 14th day of 
August, 1873. 

JAS. G. LOUG, 

Chairman. 


Testimony of Lieutenant Kelley. 

Lieutenant Kelley, of the Metropolitan Police force, 
being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he has seen the 
report of the testimony of George N. Barber in reference 
to the replevy of a horse, wagon, and harness, taken from 


t 



81 


t 


f 

one John Dash; that Dash was arrested upon a charge of 
grand larceny, preferred by Barber, and the property taken 
in charge by the court; that at the hearing or trial, it 
appeared that Dash had the property in custody by the 
consent of Barber. The case was dismissed, and the prop¬ 
erty named in the warrant, ordered by the court to be 
restored to Dash; the horse which was at the station 
house was returned at once ; but it appeared on inquiry 
that the wagon and harness had been taken to Barber's 
premises, corner Third and II streets northwest. Deponent 
accompanied Dash there, and asked Mrs. Barber if the 
wagon and harness belonging to Dash were there; she 
said, “Yes ; but if Dash dared to come in there, she would 
run that knife into him,” holding up in her hands a 
large kitchen knife; told her I thought not; and sent for 
Dash to come in. Ko violence was used or attempted, 
except the above language by Mrs. Barber; secured the 
property to the possession of Dash; refused to acknowl¬ 
edge service of writ of replevy, because I was acting 
under an order of the police court in the execution of the 
following order: 

Police Court, D. C., June 9 , 1873 . 

UNITED STATES ] 

vs. ^ Grand Larceny. 

I 

JOHN P. DASH. J 

It is ordered tliat the property in above case be returned to the de¬ 
fendant, John P. Dash. 

(Signed) LUTHER G. DAWSON, 

Clerk , fyc. 

Barber was at the police court on the day of the trial 
before the case came up; deponent told him not to go 
away, as the case would come up soon. 

JOHK F. KELLEY, 
Lieutenant , 7 th Precinct. 


11 


I 


82 


Sworn and subscribed before me, this 14th August, 1872. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Frank P. Closs. 

Mr. Frank P. Gloss, attorney-at-law, makes the fol¬ 
lowing statement in regard to the statement of Robert 
Johnson given before the committee yesterday : 

Robert Johnson and Alice Jones, alias Johnson, were 
both arrested by Lieut. EcklofF, and brought before the 
police court charged with keeping a bawdy house. 
Johnson employed Mr. Williams, and a friend of Alice 
Jones employed me to take care of her case. ’No money 
was paid this friend, but Johnson promised to be security 
for my fee of $20. Before trials Johnson paid Mr. Wil¬ 
liams $20 on our mutual account, promising to pay the 
other $20, (Mr. Williams having also charged him $20,) 
within a few days. The case was tried in the police 
court, and Johnson was dismissed; but Alice Jones was 
fined. An appeal was taken at his request; the case 
came up in the criminal court, and she was again con¬ 
victed. After this second conviction, Johnson frequently 
promised to pay whatever tee Mr. Williams and myself 
would charge for extra services in the criminal court. 
We frequently went to see him about the fee and paying 
the girl’s (Alice) fine; he always promised to settle, but 
always failed to keep his promise. The last time I saw 
him was in Mr. Williams’ office, when he promised to 
pay us $80 within a few days, that being the amount we 
agreed to take to settle the matter. Several days having 
passed, and he not appearing, I placed the bill in the 
hands of Henry Lacy for collectibn, with instructions to 
sue, if not paid at once. Being summoned by Lacy, I 
went before Justice Clark and swore to the account. The 



V •> 

<V> 

day was set for trial, and Johnson not appearing, judg¬ 
ment was given against Johnson by default. Three or 
four days after, Constable Lacy informed me that the ease 
had been re-opened b}^ Justice Clark on Johnson’s affi¬ 
davit that he could prove he did not owe the amount 
claimed; and I was summoned to appear at 10 o’clock the 
following morning before the Justice. I told Lacy that 
it was impossible for me to attend at that hour, and asked 
to have the case postponed until 1 o’clock, believing that 
to be my rights, as Johnson had several postponements* 
At one o’clock the following day, I attended at Justice 
Clark’s office from one until half past one, and Johnson 
not appearing, judgment was affirmed. I had no conver¬ 
sation with Justice Clark, nor with Constable Lacy about 
the case, no more than I requested that the case might 
speedily be tried, as the defendant, Johnson, had so con¬ 
stantly deceived us that we desired to enforce the execu¬ 
tion of the agreement. 

FRANK P. CLOSS. 

Sworn and subscribed on this 14tli day of August, 1873 

JAS. G. LONG, 

Chairman . 


Testimony of A. JB. Williams. 

Mr. A. B. Williams, attorney-at-law, makes the fol¬ 
lowing statement in regard to the same case: 

Early in May last, Robert Johnson came to me and re¬ 
quested me to defend him in the police court, where he 
was charged, jointly with one Alice Jones, alias Johnson, 
with being the keeper of a bawdy house. A day or two 
after this, he informed me that Mr. F. P. Closs would be 
associated with me for the defence. The case was post¬ 
poned by the court several times. On the day of the trial, 
Johnson was acquitted and Alice Jones was convicted; an 
appeal was taken by request of Johnson. I agreed to at- 



84 


« 

tend to the case at the police court for $20, and Mr. Gloss 
made the same agreement. Johnson paid us $10 each, 
which I received, and for which I gave him a receipt. 
The appeal case was tried in the criminal court; Mr. 
Closs and myself appeared and defended. Johnson came 
to see us after the case was over, and said he had no money 
1o pay us then. Several weeks passed, during which I 
saw Johnson many times, and on one of these occasions 
he asked what my charge would he, saying that he was 
very short of money, and wished me to be as moderate as 
I could. I said to him: You have paid me $10, and owe 
me $10 on account; I will agree, if Mr. Closs is willing, 
to settle for $15 additional each; saying to him, that will 
make you pay us $25 each for our services in both courts. 
To this he agreed, and thanked me for being so moderate 
with him. He promised to pay it in a few days, but 
failed to do sc. I saw him afterwards, and he offered to 
give me an order for $30 in settlement. I said it is un¬ 
necessary; pay the money within a day or two. He said, 
I will pay; but never did, and never has paid it. I au¬ 
thorized Mr. Closs to collect the claim in any way he 
chose, and left the city for a summer trip, and returned 
here last Tuesday, having been absent when the suit was 
brought. I have had no conversation with Justice Clark 
or Constable Lacy in reference to the collection of claim. 

A. B. WILLIAMS. 

Sworn and subscribed, the 14th day of August, 1873. 

JAS. g/lOYG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Henry Lacy. 

Henry Lacy, constable, being duly sworn, states as fol¬ 
lows : That the bill of Messrs. Closs and Williams, attor¬ 
neys, was placed in my hands for collection; I presented the 
bill of $30 to Mr. Robert Johnson, and he said that he 



had no money, but would pay it in a few days; I then 
told him that he had failed to keep his promise so often that 
Mr. Gloss had instructed me to sue, if the money was not 
paid at once; and I was compelled to do so, as I had 
vouched for his honesty to Gloss when he engaged him. 
He then said, “If you sue me, I will swear that I don’t owe 
but $15 more.” In the afternoon of the same day, I ob¬ 
tained a summons from Justice Clark, and served it on 
him. I returned the summons ;. and had none other but 
official conversation with Justice Clark in regard to the 
case. After judgment, I was instructed by Mr. Gloss to 
obtain execution ; which Justice Clark refused to issue, on 
the ground that he had granted a hearing on the 7th of 
August; and instructed me to so inform Mr. Closs; which 
I did. Mr. Closs said it was impossible for him to be 
present at that hour, but would beat one o’clock; Jus¬ 
tice Clark postponed the case, and instructed me to notify 
Johnson; which I did; and he said it was all right. 
There was no collusion whatever between Justice Clark,. 
Mr. Closs, and myself; but, on the contrary, I became 
surety for Johnson’s appearance in the police court, and 
at my request Lieutenant Eckloff did not arrest him on 
the street; and the testimony given before the committee 
yesterday was the first intimation I had that Johnson 
considered me other than a firm friend of his. 

HENRY LACY. 

Sworn and subscribed before me, this 14th day of 
August, 1878. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Jas. H. Vermilya. 

District of Columbia , County of Washington , to wit: 

Before me, A. E. L. Keese, a Notary Public in arid for 
the District and County aforesaid, personally appeared 



James II. Yermilya, who, being duly sworn according to 
law, deposes and says : That on or about the second day 
of November, A. I). 1872, he was the plaintiff in a re¬ 
plevin suit entitled, “ James IJ. Yermilya vs. William 
Smith,” instituted before one Joseph T. K. Plant, a Jus 
tice of the Peace in and for the District and County 
aforesaid; that at the commencement, and during the 
progress of said suit, he paid into the hands of the said 
Joseph T. K. Plant, at his, the said Plant’s, demand, the 
sum of fifteen (15) dollars, being the alleged costs of said 
suit; that the cause was heard before said Justice, and a 
judgment rendered in favor of him, the affiant, with costs 
of suit; from which judgment the defendant, Smith, ap¬ 
pealed to the Supreme court of the District of Columbia; 
that upon an examination, with his attorney, of the 
papers in the said cause, as “certified up” to the said Su¬ 
preme Court of the District of Columbia by the said 
Joseph T. K. Plant, in his official capacity as Justice of 
the Peace, and entered in the law docket of said Supreme 
court as No. 10,435, he discovered that the costs in said 
cause were assessed to the amount of but six (6) dollars, 
being nine (9) dollars less than the amount demanded by 
the said Plant and actually paid by the affiant; that, he 
called upon the said Plant at his office, and notified him 
of that fact, and requested a correction of the record in 
the said cause; which request was disregarded by the 
said Plant, and the costs permitted to stand as erroneously 
charged; that the said cause has been heard in the Su¬ 
preme court of the District of Columbia, and a verdict 
rendered for the affiant, including costs; and that the case 
has been since settled, the settlement based upon the 
charge of costs as appearing upon the record as above set 
forth; that being informed by his attorney that said 
charges for costs were exorbitant, and said return fraudu¬ 
lent, he again called upon the said Joseph T. K. Plant, 
and requested that the said overcharge of nine (9) dollars 


87 


be returned to him; which he, the said Plant, refused to 
do, and stiil refuses; whereby the affiant is wrongfully de¬ 
prived of the sum of nine (9) dollars to which he is justly 
entitled. 

JAS. 11. VERMILYA. 


Filed and sworn before me, this 16th day of August, 
1873. 


J AS. Gr. LOR Gr, 

Chairman 


Testimony of William A. Boss. 

William A. Boss, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That Mr. Jas. H, Vermilya came to Justice Plant’s office 
and stated that he had contracted to sell a sewing machine 
to a certain party, and soon after learned that it was 
pawned with William Smith, R. Fulton & Co.; he depos¬ 
ited with Justice Plant the sum of $15, to cover the cost of 
replevying the machine. This deponent accompanied 
James Taylor, constable, who had a writ of replevin is¬ 
sued by Justice Plant, to the place of Fulton & Co. on 
Ninth street, and had several interviews wjth Mr. Smith 
who declined to surrender the property. Constable Tay¬ 
lor then returned the writ—“goods eloigned." He stated 
to Justice Plant the number of times that we had visited 
Smith’s place and what trouble we had had in the matter, 
and Justice Plant paid over to Constable Taylor $11, the 
amount remaining after deducting his own charge of $4 
for the writ. 

Cross-examirud by Mr. Gordon. 

Do not know who the $15 was paid to ; was a constable 
about twenty years previous to 1866; $6 was all the 
costs that could have been properly certified on appeal, 
the property not having been recovered. 

W. A. BOSS. 



Sworn 

1873. 


and subscribed before me, tins 16th August, 
• • ( 

W. E. VERMILLION, 
Chairman pro tern. 


Testimony of J. B. Wunderly. 

J. B. Wunderly, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 
That he does business at 632 F street; that in the fall of 
1870, October, I think, was engaged with Daniel Welch 
& Co.; brought suit before Justice Plant on four promis¬ 
sory notes of the same parties as makers and endorsers, 
on which Justice Plant rendered judgment in favor of 
Daniel Welch & Co. When judgment was rendered, I de¬ 
manded amount of costs; Justice Plant said $4.40, being 
$1.10 in each case; which I paid then. About two weeks 
afterwards, called on Plant for transcript of judgment in 
the cases, which he declined to give me unless I paid him 
an additional $4.40, to which he averred he was entitled, on 
account ot there having been two parties to the defence 
against whom judgment was rendered; did not pay this 
extra charge at that time; but afterwards paid it, and 
took the transcripts, which were needed in business; and 
I could not obtain them without paying it. 

J. B. WUNDERLY. 


Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 19th day of 
August, 1873. 


JAS. G. LONG, 


Chairman. 


'Testimony of Solomon Caro. 

Solomon Ca&o, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That 
about the month of February, 1872, he sold a dress to a 
colored woman for $4; had loaned $4 on it when in the 
pawn business ; she had examined it for an hour or more 




before buying it; carried it home, and kept it till next 

day, when she returned it and demanded her money, 

because, she said, there was a hole in it; refused to refund 

the money. It was a white pique marseilles with flounces, 

elaborately trimmed, the making of which alone must 

have cost at least ten dollars. She again left, taking the 

dress with her. The next dav I received summons from 

«/ 

J ustice Plant to answer her complaint for damages to the 
amount of $4. On trial day I swore to above facts, and 
offered to send my wife to court to swear to the circum¬ 
stances of the sale of the dress, she having made the sale. 
Plant said, “No; it was not necessary;” and asked me 
what the dress was worth. I said $10 for making alone. 
He said, as it was worth so much, he would give 
judgment against me, and let me keep the dress ; and then 
rendered judgment against me tor $4 and costs, some 
$6.50 or $7 in all; do not recollect the exact amount. 
About two hours later, Constable Stuart and William A. 
Boss came into my store, bringing the dress, and demand¬ 
ing the immediate payment of the amount of the judg¬ 
ment. The demand was made in a very peremptory and 
arrogant manner by Boss, who was not an officer; and I 
asked him who he was and what he had to do with it, and 
told him I wished him to leave the store. He then cried 
out to Stuart to levy. I then paid the bill, something 
like $7, to save further trouble ; believe Plant gave judg¬ 
ment against me in this case because he knew I was good 
for the costs, and thought the plaintiff was not. 

SOLOMON CARO. 

Sworn and subscribed, this 20th day of August, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, Chairman. 


Testimony of Philip A. Bell. 

Philip A. Bell, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 
That he applied to Justice Klopfer fora warrant to arrest 
12 



90 




one Absalom Brown for profanity and obscenity in the 
public streets; paid him one dollar, and received what 
purported to be a warrant for the arrest of said Brown ; 
said Klopfer did not administer any oath to this deponent, 
of which he thought rather strange. Upon presenting the 
warrant to an officer of the Metropolitan Police force for 
service, he told me that it was informal and without an 
information, and that he could not serve it; then applied 
to Mr. Miller, at the police court, who told me the papers 
were informal and of no use ; think Justice Klopfer either 
purposely avoided giving me a valid paper, to screen 
Brown, or was incapable through ignorance in making a 
legal and proper one. P. A. BELL. 

Sworn before me, this 21st August, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, Chairman . 


Testimony of Samuel Hnntrces. 

Samuel Huntress, 1307 D street, being duly sworn, de¬ 
poses and says: That sometime in 1873, one of my work 
horses had a corn in his hoof, from which he appeared 
lame at times, while at other times he would show no 
signs of suffering. During my absence from home, my 
colored man hitched the horses into a coach to carry some 
girls over to my farm. When about one square from 
home, near Twelfth street, the man and team were ar¬ 
rested and taken before Squire Keese, who fined the man 
$5 and costs. My wife sent down the money, $7.50, and 
the man and horses were released. The next morning I 
was summoned before Justice Keese to answer the same 
offence of cruelty to animals. I at once appeared with 
eleven witnesses, one being McClellan, a horse-doctor, all 
of whom testified that I was habitually careful of my ani¬ 
mals, and that this horse was none the worse for driving. 
Nevertheless, he fined me $25 and costs of $2.50, which 
Mr. William Smith, who was present, paid for me, upon 





ill 


the representation of J ustice Keese that there was no appeal 
from his decision. I had, previous to this, wished to rule 
the case away from Keese to some other Justice, not be¬ 
lieving that I could be lined twice for the same offence ; 
but Keese said such a case could not be ruled away. 

SAMUEL HUNTRESS. 

Subscribed and sworn before me, this 21st August, 
1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, Chairman. 


Testimony of T. F. Gatchel, 

Theodore F. Gatchel, being duly sworn, deposes and 
says: That he is the president of the Society for the Pre¬ 
vention of Cruelty to Animals, chartered by act of Con¬ 
gress approved June 21, 1870. In January last, arrested 
a team and driver, and had the team taken to the stable, 
and went to Justice Iveese’s office with the driver; found 
the horses were the property of Samuel Huntress. They 
were in a bad condition, corruption oozing from the foot 
of one of them. The driver was charged with whipping 
the horse to increase his speed, when he was unable, from 
lameness, to go faster. Justice Iveese heard the testimony, 
and fined the driver $5 and costs. The fine was not imme¬ 
diately paid, and the man was detained at the station- 
house until the money was forthcoming, which was in 
the course of the day. Samuel Huntress, the owner of 
the horses, was the same day charged by this deponent, 
before Justice Keese, with causing and permitting his 
team to be driven when in an unfit condition for labor. 
On this charge Justice Keese issued a warrant for the 
arrest of Samuel Huntress, which was made the following 
morning by this deponent. Upon the hearing, deponent 
made a statement, as is his custom, that he did not wish 
to do injustice or show unfairness, or to persecute any 
one in the prosecution of his official duties. Defendant de- 



sired a postponement for time to get witnesses; made no 
objection to this, and the hearing was adjourned eight 
days, Mr. William Smith becoming bail. On the trial, the 
case was proven by the testimony of Officers Berkley, 
Clayton, and myself. The fact was established that the 
aft horse seemed to be deprived of its natural powers 
of locomotion; it had to be whipped to get it along at 
all. Defendant produced several witnesses, one of whom 
stated that he had been driving for Huntress for thirteen 
months; that he had seen corruption issue from the foot 
of the animal; asked that judgment be rendered on his 
testimony for $50, notwithstanding all the evidence 
offered in palliation. The Justice fined him $25 and costs. 
I did not hear anything about an appeal; left the office 
immediately after the rendition of judgment to Justice 
Keese; think Mr. Wm. Smith was a witness in the case; 
remember the charge of venue having been presented on 
the day of trial. I objected, because the case had been 
opened before Justice Keese ; the Justice sustained the ob¬ 
jection ; considered the case a provoking one of cruelty to 
dumb animals; received from Justice Keese the whole 
amount of the fine, $25. The law provides that all the fine 
shall be paid over to the society. One half of the fines 
accrue to the benefit of the society, and the other half to 
that of the public school fund. 

THEO. E. GATCHEL. 

Sworn and subscribed before me, this 22d August, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 

Chairman. 


Testimony of Officer Berkley. 

Daniel P. Berkley, being duly sworn, deposes and 
says: That he is an officer of the Metropolitan Police 
force; that he has heard the testimony of Mr. T. F. 
Gatchel; can fully corroborate the same as regards the 



I 


!I3 


arrest of the team and driver, the condition of the horses, 
and the proceedings at the trial ; would also add that the 
other horse was sick with the epizootic ; running at the 
nose, and unfit to work; was galled on the shoulder and 
hip, and his leg was very much swollen. The driver, 
when arrested, said he was going four miles in the country. 
He used a black-snake whip; did not hear anything of 
change of venue or notice of appeal ; was not present at 
the opening or close of the trial; took the driver to the 
station-house, and left him, while I called on Mrs. Hun¬ 
tress and notified her of the result of the trial and amount 
of the fine and costs. She afterwards sent the amount to 
the station, and it was handed to me to carry to Justice 
Keese; carried it, and paid it over to Justice Keese—$5 
r fine and $1 costs. 

DANIEL P. BERKLEY. 

Sworn and subscribed before me, this 22d day of Au¬ 
gust, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Officer Clayton. 

Ralph M. Clayton, being duly sworn, deposes and 
says: That in January, 1873, he was a sergeant of the 
Metropolitan Police; that he has heard the testimony of 
•Mr. T. F. Gatchel in reference to the arrest of the team 
of horses, and their driver, belonging to Samuel Huntress, 
and the subsequent proceedings at the trial, and can fully 
corroborate the same, so far as it refers to the condition 
of the horses and the facts proven on the trial, at which 
he was present as a witness. After I had commenced 
giving my evidence as prosecuting witness, I having 
ordered the arrest and sent Officer Berkley to notify 
Gatchel, Mr. William Smith, who acted as counsel for 
Huntress, moved for a change of venue. Justice Keese 



declined to consent to this, as being illegal after the testi¬ 
mony had commenced; think something was said about 
an appeal, but am not positive; do not recollect that 
Justice Keese made any decision in regard to it; think 
this reference to appeal was made at the time the change 
of venue was denied ; saw a portion of the fine paid before 
leaving the court, and security given for the balance; consid¬ 
ered the case an aggravated one of cruelty to animals; so 
much so, -that it had been for some days previously 
remarked that the owner of the horses would have been 
fined before this, if he had been a poor man ; received the 
fine from Mrs. Huntress that was imposed on the driver, 
and sent it to Justice Keese by Officer Berkley. The 
amount was $5 fine and $1 cost— $6 in all. 


II. M. CLAYTOH. 1 
Sworn and subscribed before me, this 22d day of Au¬ 
gust, 1873. 

JAS. G. LOKG, Chairman. 


Testimony of Justice Keese. 

A. E. L. Keese, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That he is a Justice of the Peace in and for the District 
of Columbia. On the 16th January, 1873, Officers Clay¬ 
ton and Berkley came to my office with a colored man 
named David Speaks, charged with cruelly whipping a 
team of lame horses. They were accompanied by Mr.. 
Gatchel, president of the Society for the Prevention of 
Cruelty to Animals; heard the case. Speaks said the 
horses belonged to Samuel Huntress. The case being 
clearly proven, I fined him $5 and $1 costs; he being a 
poor man, did not charge him for the judgment and swear¬ 
ing of witnesses. He was taken to the station-house for 
detention until the fine and costs should be paid ; payment 
was made to me the same day through Officer Berkley, 
upon which I ordered his release. 



The same day Mr. Gatehel swore out a warrant against 
Samuel Huntress, charging him with permitting his ani¬ 
mals to be worked and otherwise cruelly treated, in vio¬ 
lation of an act of the Legislative Assembly dated August 
23, 1871. [Warrant here exhibited.] Having heard the 
witnesses, some ten in number, January 24, I gave judg¬ 
ment for $25 and costs of $2.30, considering it an ex¬ 
treme case of cruelty. The costs were $1 for warrant 
30 cents for subpoenas, swearing ten witnesses 50 cents’ 
and judgment 50 cents. He was brought before me first 
on this warrant on the 17th day of January ; heard testi_ 
mony of Gatehel and Clayton that day, and continued 
the case till the 24tli, on the application of defendant, to 
allow him to get witnesses from the country. On the 24th 
Clayton was again sworn, and while proceeding with his 
testimony, Mr. William Smith presented the usual affida¬ 
vit of defendant for ruling a case before another Justice, 
authorized by act of Congress, February 22, 1867, (affida¬ 
vit shown,) and asked that the venue might be changed 
to the court of Justice Klopfcr; declined to grant the 
motion because the testimony had already commenced ; 
thereupon Mr. Smith gave notice that they should take 
au appeal; proceeded on with the case; and gave judgment 
as above stated ; heard nothing of an appeal after the trial 
concluded. Mr. Smith paid me $20 at once on account of 
the fine, and stated that he would be security for the 
other $5 fine and $2.30 costs, which he paid me on the 
29th day of January, and I paid it over to Mr. Gatehel 
the same day. The man was fined for cruelly whipping 
the animals, and the owner was fined for allowing them 
to be worked and otherwise cruelly treated, as stated 
above—being separate and distinct cases under separate 
and distinct charges. 

A. E. L. KEESE. 

Sworn to before me, this 22d day of August, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, Chairman. 


96 


Testimony of Thornton Smith. 

Thornton Smith, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That sometime during the summer of 1872 he had a case 
before Justice E. J. Klopfer, in which he obtained- judg¬ 
ment against one Robert Farrell for $65 on a note of hand. 
Farrell paid the costs to Klopfer, and gave notice of ap¬ 
peal, and paid Klopfer $10 for certification of the proceed¬ 
ings to the Supreme court of the District. Several 
months afterwards deponent’s attorney went to court for 
the purpose of having the case brought up for trial, and 
found the case had never been docketed ; asked Klopfer 
why the case had not been certified; he promised to do it 
that day; waited on him a week, and he had not done it. 
My attorney then paid the deposit for costs, and had the 
case docketed, and at the end of the term took judgment, 
and I got my money and costs, although the defendant 
demurred somewhat to paying two docket fees in the 
same case. And this deponent further says: That Con¬ 
stable II. M. C. Donaher collected a judgment - against 
Joseph F. Brown, of about $100, for this deponent, last 
year, of which he has only paid over about $40, leaving 
upwards of $50 due this deponent, which he cannot ob¬ 
tain from said constable nor his sureties, as the counsel of 
this deponent informs him that the bond of said Consta¬ 
ble Donaher is defective. And this deponent further 
says: That Constable Thomas J. Bicksler collected of 
W. H. Chase, for this deponent, on a judgment, some $50 
or $60, nearly two years ago, of which this deponent has 
only received as yet the sum of $10 ;he has made repeated 
efforts to obtain the balance of the amount from Bicksler 
without success. 

THORHTOH SMITH. 

Sworn before me, this 26th day of August, 1873. 

JAS. G. LOHG, Chairman. 


97 


Testimony of Buckley Hayes. 

Buckley W. Hayes, being duly sworn, deposes and 
says: That about three or four weeks since, he was sum¬ 
moned by Constable Donaher to appear before Justice 
Moulton to answer the clafin of one Adams, a partner of 
bis in some jobs of bricklaying. I was sick in bed at the 
time, and told the constable the claim was an unjust one, 
and I did not owe it. He left, saying it would come on 
for trial about the next Wednesday, and he would call 
again before that time and let me know, and see if I was 
well enough to attend. He came the next Monday, when 
I was away at work, and left word for me to appear that 
night at seven o’clock. This was sooner than I expected, 
and I was not ready for trial; went to Justice Moulton’s 
office and asked to have the case continued, as I could not 
get my witnesses that night. He refused to postpone the 
case, saying he thought I had had time enough; heard 
Adams’ statement and mine, and rendered a judgment 
against me for about $50 ; think, on a fair settlement with 
Adams, I might possibly have owed him eight or ten 
dollars, which I could have proven, if I had been allowed 
the time to secure witnesses. 

BUCKLEY W. HAYES. 

Sworn before me, this 27th day of August, 1873. 

JAS. G. LOHG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of IT. M. C. Donaher. 

H. M. C. Donaher, being duly sworn, deposes and 
says : That he is a constable ; that Thornton Smith gave 
him an execution against Joseph F. Brown about the 6th 
December, 1871, for $97.15, to satisfy another judgment 
against him, upon which there was a balance of $66 due, 
offering me one-half of the Brown execution, if I would 
collect it. I made the collection of Brown, and applied 
13 



98 


it upon the judgment against Smith, and the balance to 
an account against the Abbot estate, amounting to $40. 
The amount was not sufficient by some $15, and Mr. 
Smith knew very well that I made proper application of 
all the funds collected. He went to several lawyers to 
have me prosecuted, all of whom refused to touch his case 
when they saw my papers. My bond is deemed perfectly 
good by the clerk of the Supreme court. 

H. M. C. DONAHER. 

Sworn before me, this 27th August, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Thos. J. Bicksler. 

Thomas J. Bicksler, being duly sworn, deposes and 
says; That he is a constable, and has held a commission 
in that capacity since March, 1869. About the 5th day 
of August, 1871, Thornton Smith placed in my hands an 
execution against W. H. Chase for $60, including costs, 
saying that it had been through the hands of four differ¬ 
ent constables, who all returned it nulla bona\ and if I would 
collect it, he would pay me $25. I agreed to try it, and 
finally succeeded in collecting the money, when Deputy 
Marshal Edwards attached $25 of the amount to satisfy 
a balance of a judgment in case u 8,143, D. P. Holloway vs. 
Thornton Smith/’ for which I hold the receipt of 0 Kim- 
mell, as agent of D. P. Holloway, dated 19th August, 
1871. [Receipts shown.] This, together with my fee of $25 
and the $10 paid Smith, comprises the whole amount of 
the execution. When I paid Smith the $10,1 showed 



99 


him this receipt, and he appeared satisfied, with the ex¬ 
ception that he professed to believe that I had put up 
the job on him, as he termed it, of the Holloway attach¬ 
ment, and he would make a fuss about it if I did not 
pay it. I knew nothing whatever of the matter; and 
having fulfilled my contract with Smith, paid no further 
attention to the subject. 

T. J. BICKSLER. 

Sworn to before me, this 28th of August, 1873. 

JAS GL LONG, 
Chairman. 




Testimony of W. II. Chase. 

W. Id. Chase, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That he resides at 1125 Eleventh street northwest. Some¬ 
time in 1871 Thornton Smith laid some concrete pavement 
for me, which soon broke up and proved of no value. I 
declined to pay for the same until it was made good. He 
promised to fix it, but never did; but brought suit and 
obtained judgment against me for some $65. During my 
absence, Constable Bicksler levied upon a family organ at 
my house, which he took away. On my return to the 
city I called on Bicksler; he was not in, but a young 
man, I took to be C. A. Kimmell, told me he would like 
to know when I paid the money to Bicksler on the exe¬ 
cution, as he wished to attach it to satisfy an execution 
against Smith, then in his control. Bicksler came in 
while this conversation was going on. I told him I 
wanted to settle this matter, although whatever I paid 
would be a dead loss to me, and I wished to keep 



Smith out of it as long as I could. He remarked that 
Smith would get none or but very little ot it, as there 
was an attachment ready to be served upon it. I then 
paid Bicksler $65, and took his receipt tor the same, (re¬ 
ceipt shown,) dated August 19, 1871. 

WM. H. CHASE. 

Sworn to before me, this 29th day of August, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Robert J. McLellan. 

Rorert McLellan, being duly sworn, deposes and 
says: That he is acquainted with horses and their dis¬ 
eases, and has made a specialty of shoeing crippled horses; 
was acquainted with the stock of Mr. Samuel Huntress; 
about the month of February last, considered them in a 
condition to be benefited, rather than injured, by a little 
exercise or light work; was surprised when I heard that 
the driver had been arrested and fined for cruelty to the 
team, for I never deemed the horses unfit for use ; I had 
used Mr. Huntress’ horses considerably myself, and the 
lame one had a slight protuberance upon one knee, that 
made him awkward in his gait; but never supposed he 
suffered excruciating pain from it. He was a very large 
horse and clumsy in his walk ; do not think the case was 
one of cruelty to animals, properly considered ; never knew 
Huntress to overload his teams, and have always known 
him to be a liberal feeder of his horses; have known him 
• to refuse to work them on account of the imclemeney of 

the weather, when I think I would have worked mv 

' «/ 



101 


horses ; if corruption was oozing from the foot of a horse, 
relief would be obtained by exercise. 

ROBERT J. McLELLAN. 
Sworn to this 29th day of August, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of James A. Jenifer. 

James A. Jenifer, being duly sworn, corroborates the 
evidence of the last witness, McLellan, as to the general 
treatment of animals by Huntress ; and further states 
that he was superintendent of cleaning streets, under 
General Ballocli, last December, when all the horses in 
the city were laid up by the epizootic, and was obliged to 
send over the driver for Mr Huntress’ horses to do his 
work. They were strong, and worked well, and were not 
laid up with the disease; were a little stiff when taken 
from the stable, but exercise caused the lameness to dis¬ 
appear. The horses continued in the same condition till 
the time they were arrested; do not consider that they 
were unfit to work ; one of them had a corn in his foot, 
which made him appear very lame when starting off*. 

J. A. JENIFER. 

Sworn to before me, August 29, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Geo. Seitz. 

George Seitz, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 
That Miss E. J. Olmstead.sent for him to call at her house 
yesterday, in the rain storm, to appraise some furniture. 
Arriving there, No. 916 Tenth street, found that Constable 
Cay wood was there with a writ of attachment, swbrn out 
by the landlord, C. H. E. Richardson, on the plea that she 
was about to remove from the jurisdiction of the court, 




102 


with the intent to defraud him of his just demands, and 
was about to make a levy on amelodeon when Miss Olmstead 
offered her watch as security until her brother came home, 
when he would settle it. An examination of the papers,which 
are here shown, proves that the tenant had paid her rent 
regularly on the first day of every month, the last receipt hav¬ 
ing been dated August 7, and receipting for the rent from 
July 1 to August 1. Attached to the papers wds another 
receipt, dated August 1, running for the rent from Au¬ 
gust 1 to September 1, which would not become due un¬ 
til Monday next. Miss Olmstead had notified Richard¬ 
son a few days before that she was going to leave the 
house on the 1st September, on a visit home, and store 
her furniture, in order to give him sometime to get a new 
tenant; and Richardson had taken advantage of this kind¬ 
ness on her part to make her pay the rent before it was 
due, and costs to the amount of $5. Deponent advanced 
the $30, and the constable went his way. 

GEO. SEITZ. 

Sworn to before me, this 29th day of August, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Turner Sappington. 

Turner Sappington, being duly sworn, says: That he 
worked for B. Chambers as laborer, hostler, and driver. 
Chambers was a machinist at the corner of Fifth and H 
streets northwest, and built lighthouses for the govern¬ 
ment ; built them too cheap, and could not pay his hands. 
One of them, named Mulcare,* and this deponent, each 
swore out attachments, which were placed in the hands of 
Constable C. A. Kimmell. When this deponent went to 
Kimmell, the shop had been closed by the trustee, Lewis, 
who held a deed of trust on all the tools and fixtures 
named therein, Chambers owed deponent about $93, and 



gave him a pile of old iron, etc., not specified in the deed 
of trust; but when the shop was closed I could not get it 
out. I went to Kimmell and told him how I was fixed, 
and also told him about the horse and wagon that I had 
charge of. He said he could get it, but it would be much 
trouble; told him I would give him $10 ; said he would 
not do it for that. I then told him that if he would give 
me $70 out of the $93, he might have the balance. He 
said he would do it; told me I was in time; that there 
was only one attachment, Mulcare’s, ahead of mine; then 
went to Justice Walter’s and swore out the papers. Mul- 
care and a blacksmith, named Acton, also obtained papers 
subsequently, and Kimmell attached the horse and wagon, 
the pile of old junk, a baby’s wagon, and a little boy’s 
sleigh, and took them away. Chambers afterwards re¬ 
leased the baby wagon and boy’s sleigh. The horse and 
wagon sold at the bazaar, as I was told, for $255 ; the old 
junk brought $21 net. Kimmell offered me $1.50, and 
said it was all he could give me. I would not take it, 
and he would give me no further satisfaction. I under- 
stand Mulcare’s bill was about $40; mine was $93, and 
Acton’s was $60—total, $193; was told the horse and 
wagon sold for $255, and old junk for $21 net—total, 
$276. Kimmell was to attach the balance of the proceeds 
of the horse and wagon, after Mulcare’s claim was satisfied, 
to satisfy my claim; but did not do so. Although there 
was plenty of money for all the claims that I knew of, I 
could not get my money. 

his 

T. X SAPPIHGTOK 

mark. 

Sworn to before me, this 2d day of September, 1873. 

JAS. G. LOHG, 
Chairman . 


104 


Testimony of Henry F. Geoghegan. 

Henry P. Geoghegan being duly sworn, deposes and 
says : That on a judgment for $59 and costs, Constable Jas. 
Edwards attached deponent’s boat, worth-about $400, and 
sold her for $125 to the plaintiff in the suit, HeAtley; that 
the said Edwards has made the costs and judgment amount 
to $117.85. Deponent had personal property on board 
the boat when sold, which he attempted to remove before 
the sale, but which Edwards forbade the watchman to 
permit. After the sale Edwards gave deponent an order 
on DeAtlee for the same, but the boat was away, and 
the property could not be obtained. Deponent has brought 
suit against Edwards and his bondsmen for the recovery 
of the same. He is of opinion that the costs above named 
must be excessive and illegal, being nearly 100 per centum 
upon the original claim. 

HENRY P. GEOGHEGAN. • 

Sworn to and subscribed, September 2, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 

Chairman. 


Testimony of Mrs. H. Berger. 

Mrs. H. Berger, being duly sworn, deposes and saj T s: 
That an execution for $95.20, interest and costs, rendered 
by Justice Keese on the 29th day of March, 1872, was 
placed in the hands of Constable T. J. Bicksler on the 
same day. Sometime during last year he paid on the 
same $25, keeping $10 for his costs, he having received 
$35 at that time from Holden, the defendant. Deponent 
understands that Bicksler has received from Holden the 
full amouut of said execution, but has not, to this day, 
made any return of said execution to the office of Justice 
Keese, as appears by certified transcript from the docket 



of said Keese, dated September 2, 1873 ; nor has he made 
any further return of money to the plaintiff. 


HERMIHE BERGER. 


Subscribed and sworn before me, September 2,1873. 

JAS. G. LORG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of T. J. Bicksler. 

T. J. Bicksler, constable, being duly sworn, deposes 
and says : That he received an execution against the ef¬ 
fects of Chas. II. Holden for $95.20 and costs, in March, 
1872, in favor of Anton Afeyer. Holden paid this depo¬ 
nent $35 shortly after on account of said execution, $25 
of which I paid to Mrs. Berger on the representation of 
Justice Keese that she was the representative of Mr. 
Meyer. Previous to this, I had made a levy on goods 
which afterward proved not to be the property of Mr. Hol¬ 
den, and were released. I could not find any other property, 
and was unable to get any more money from Holden, where¬ 
on I made return to Justice Keese of the papers with my 
endorsement of $35 collected, and no property found with 
which to satisfy the balance of the execution. This re¬ 
turn was made by letter, the execution having been mis¬ 
laid, and this deponent saw Keese enter it on his docket. 
It was made within thirty or forty days from the date of 
its issue. The commission of ten per cent., which was 
agreed upon, and the costs, made up the $10 retained. 

At the time of the trial of the cause, Justice Keese told 
Holden and this deponent that the note belonged to him, 
(Keese,) but that he would bring the suit in the name of 
Meyer. 

T. J. BICKSLER. 

Sworn to before me, September 3d, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


14 



106 


Testimony of Jas. Edwards . 

James Edwards, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That he is a constable of the District of Columbia; that 
he seized the sloop Thos. H. Waddy, on the 1st of July, 
1873, upon an attachment sworn out by Matthew DeAtley 
before Justice Charles Walter, dated 14th June. Depo¬ 
nent was indemnified against injury from wrongful seizure 
by bond from DeAtley and L. G. Hine. I served notice 
of appearance on defendant, Thos. E. Waddy, July|2,1873, 
to beat the office of Justice Walter on the 7th day of 
July, 1873. On the 7t.h of July judgment was rendered 
by default in the sum of $59.88 debt and $11.72 costs, and 
execution issued for the same and all additional cost< there¬ 
on, and directed to this deponent. I proceeded to sell the 
boat Thos. H. Waddy, after five days’ advertisement, upon 
the 12th day of July ; and on the same day paid over to 
the plaintiff, DeAtley, satisfaction, taking his receipt for 
the same. [All the papers in the above case here shown. | 
Deponent was obliged to place a responsible watchman on 
board of the sloop from the time of its seizure, and paid 
Nicolas McGuinness thirty dollars for services as watch¬ 
man twelve days and nights. [Receipt for same here 
shown.] Also paid wharfage bill of $1.00 per day, for 12 
days, to T. W. Riley & Son. [Receipt shown.] Return 
5 percent, commissions on debt, $3.58, being a total amount 
of costs and expenses of $57.70, all of which are legal and 
just in the opinion of this deponent. After making the 
seizure, deponent was informed that the sloop belonged 
to a Mr. Hewitt, on Ohio avenue, who is a son-in-law of 
Geogeghan. I saw Mr. Hewitt, informed him of the 
action I had taken, and advised him to settle the same 
as the costs would amount to as much or more than the 
debt, for I would have to put a watchman in charge at 
$2.50 per day. He told me “ to make the money out of 
the boat; if a five-cent piece would save the boat, he 


107 


would wot, give it. Mr. Geoghegan has no suit in court, 
against me. He brought a suit against me, but could not 
maintain it. I never gave any orders not to permit Mr. 
Geoghegan to go on board to remove bis personal prop¬ 
erty ; but, on the contrary, told the person in charge of 
her, before the watchman, to take what personal effects 
belonged to him, as I had nothing to do with anything 
but the vessel'and her tackle. 

JAMES EDWARDS. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 3d day of Sep¬ 
tember, 1873. 

JAS. G, LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of C. A. Kimmell. 

Charles A. Kimmell, being duly sworn, deposes and 
says: That he is a constable in the District of Columbia ; 
that he attached a horse and wagon and harness on a writ 
issued on the 8th of March, at the instance of one Mul- 
care, for wages due from B. Chambers, amounting to 
§47.40. Also had a writ for §01.5C against Chambers, in 
favor of Id. I. Gregory, which Chambers authorized me to 
satisfy out of the proceeds of the sales of the horse, wagon 
and harness, and to sell the same on the 11th to save ex¬ 
pense, if I would release a child’s sleigh and carriage, a 
rocking-horse and a wheelbarrow, which I had levied 
upon to satisfy the same. I made the exchange as desired 
upon the following authority : 

“I hereby authorize and agree to let C. A. Kimmell, constable, put 
my horse, wagon, and harness to auction, on Tuesday, 11th day of 
March, 1873, and proceeds to be applied to Fi fa’s 4,525 and 4,522, be¬ 
fore Justice Walters, or so much thereof as will settle them in full.” 

(Signed) B. CHAMBERS. 

After the sale attachments were served on this depo¬ 
nent and Wm. L. Wall, in favor of one Acton, for §82.75, 

and in favor of one Castleraan for some amount more than 
• < 


% 



sufficient to absorb all the rest of the proceeds of sales in 
my hands. On the 12th, I paid Mulcare $ 47 . 40 ; H. I. 
Gregory’s debt, $61.50, costs and expenses on same $19.06, 
total $127.96. Wall’s commissions were 10 per cent, on 
amount of sale, $255—$25.50 ; amount attached in my . 
hands in favor of Acton and Castleman, $101.54 ; which I 
paid over to Constable Thomas, making in all $255. I 
used no violence in making the levy ; first went through 
the house to see what I could levy upon, and finding the 
baby carriage, &c., in one room, made my levy upon the 
same, and passed on to other parts of the house. Return, 
ing to this room to take away the things levied upon, 
found the door locked, and Mrs. Chambers refused to give 
me the key ; explained to her that I had made my levy 
and had a right to force the lock and take my property. 
She still refused to unlock the door or give in the key, 
and I forced the lock and took away the goods ; have 
never seen Mr. Chambers on the street since the seizure 
and sale, and but once or twice in the office. In the office 
I told Chambers that I was so occupied just then that I 
could not well give him a statement, but if he would call 
on Saturday I would give him a full statement. He failed 
to call on me, but I saw by the papers that he called on 
the committee the day previous to the appointment made 
with me. It was neither Mulcare nor Gregory who told 
Chambers that they had not received the amount of their 
claims, as I settled with them shortly after the sale. I 
was not the officer referred to in Chambers’ testimony as 
having attached proceeds of goods sold by Duncynson, 
Dowling & Co. for him, in favor of Sappington. I had 
nothing to do officially with Sappington’s case. 

C. A. KIMMELL. ' 
Sworn before me, this 4tli September, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


109 


Testimony of T. J. Bicksler. 

Thomas J. Bicksler states: That he appeared before the 
said committee, having been charged with failing to 
make a return of a Ji. fa. in the case of Anton Meyer against 
‘ C. H. Holden, on the third instant. He testified that he 
had made a return in due and proper time in said cause, 
and that he had been guilty of no dereliction of duty as 
an officer. On leaving the committee room, he went to 
the office of Squire Keese, and found that his return did 
not appear on said Keese’s docket; but found a false entry 
made on said docket, namely: “Herman Berger, for the 
use of Anton Meyer.” The first name above, and the 
words “for the use of,” was a false entry on said docket, 
made in ink of a different color, and changed the style of 
the suit; the suit having been originally brought simply 
in the name of Meyer against Holden, and not for any¬ 
body else. All of this alteration was made after the ren¬ 
dition of the judgment and most likely after the com¬ 
mittee began its sitting. It would be difficult to tell 
whether the said Keese was bigger knave or fool in this 
transaction. The real plaintiff*, Meyer, might have brought 
the suit in his own name for the use of another; but who 
ever heard of a party, not the real plaintiff, bringing a 
suit in his name for the use of the real plaintiff, so 
that the ignorance of the said Keese is about on a par with 
the crime of the false entry. The nature of this transac¬ 
tion, as the deponent verily believes, is about this: The 
note in entry against Holden belonged to and was the 
property of Herman Berger; but he being forced into 
bankruptcy, and actually put in jail for concealing goods, 
contrary to the provisions of the bankrupt law,, the said 
Keese advised the alteration of the record in the way it 
was done, in order to prevent Berger’s creditors from get¬ 
ting hold of the proceeds of said note. Actuated by a 
low degree of malice towards this deponent, the said 


Keese has concocted this charge against deponent, hand 
seeks now to convict him of malfeasance in office by ref¬ 
erence to his own false and dishonest record. The afore¬ 
said Keese is very much like the tox that got his tail cut 
off by a steel trap while trying to steal chickens. He « 
went out and told all of his tribe that they had better 
have their tails cut off; it would be much more genteel. 

T. J. BICKSLER. 

Sworn to before me, this 4th day of September, 1873. 

' JAS. G. LOKG, 

Chairman. 


Testimony of Louis Baum. 

Louis Baum, being duly sworn, deposes and says : That 
about 1870, Mr. Young left with deponent a pair of tor¬ 
toise-shell eyeglasses to be repaired, and told me a lady 
would call for them ; kept them over two years without 
any call; had a sign in my jeweler’s shop “not responsible 
for goods after six months.” Sometime in 1872 a lady 
called for the glasses, when my store was in confusion 
from preparation to move; said she wanted the eyeglasses 
left by Mr. Young ; that her husband was dead ; she 
wanted the eyeglasses for a keepsake; told her to call later, 
when my goods were restored to order, and I would try 
to find them for her. She went to the door to talk to a 
policeman-* and while there I found a portion of the 
glasses. The lady went to J ustice Plant and sued me for 
$15. The glasses new were only worth about 75 cents. 
Appeared at the trial, and proved by a jeweler from the 
avenue, named IPofer, the value of the goods; and the 
length of time they had been there I swore to myself. 
Plant rendered judgment against me for $15 and costs, 
and I gave bond, and had the case certified to the court 
above for trial. Plant charged me $3.75 for costs of 



Ill 


trial and. appeal, etc. The lady afterwards came and got 
the glasses, and receipted for the same, and authorized a 
withdrawal of the proceedings from the Supreme court; 
which w^as done. Never paid the lady any portion of 
said judgment, nor any money whatever for the with¬ 
drawal of the papers. 

LOUIS BAUM. 

Sworn and subscribed, this 5th day of September, 1878. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman . 


Testimony of Jeremiah Robinson. 

Jeremiah Robinson, being duly sworn, deposes and 
says: That he hired, about the latter part of June, 1872!, 
from one Byers, his park, on Seventh street, for the 3d of 
July, and paid him $7.50 rent, taking his receipt for the 
same. Byers, learning that the park was to be used for 
the colored people, refused to carry out his agreement 
with this deponent. Deponent had gone to the expense 
of $40 and more for printing and other matters, and de¬ 
manded of Byers that he should refund these expenses; 
which he refused to do. He offered to refund the $7.50 
paid for rent. Deponent then placed all his accounts and 
receipts in the hands of Constable O. Kimmell, with in¬ 
structions to sue Byers for the full amount, if he would 
not pay the demand; and to take no part, unless he could 
get the whole. A few weeks later, he told me he had 
seen Byers, and thought that he would pay the bill in a 
few days. Next time I saw him, he said Byers had paid 
him $7.50 and taken up the receipt for the rent. De¬ 
ponent told him that he relied on that very receipt as 
evidence of the remaining claim for damages. It was 
evidence that I had something tangible upon which to 
base my expenses for printing, etc. He said that was all 



112 


he could get. Deponent told him that Byers would have 
paid deponent that at any time, without the intervention 
of an officer. Deponent then asked for the $7.50. 
Kimmell said there was an attachment against the $7.50 
for costs of a seven days’ notice, issued for me sometime 
before bv Justice Walter; that those costs and the costs 
of the attachment absorbed the whole of the $7.50. He 
could give me nothing. I called on Squire Walter, who 
looked at his docket, and said he had issued no at¬ 
tachment against me; that he had even charged the 
seven days’ notice against the defendant. Deponent had 
no objection to paying for the notice and its service; but 
to the attachment, none had ever been served upon me, 
or any notice of trial. Deponent believes this all to have 
been illegal and unjust. Kimmell would give me no fur¬ 
ther satisfaction, and said he supposed I would go before 
the Long committee. I said, “ Yes; I was going then;” 
s&id he did not care. 

liis 

JEREMIAH X ROBIKSOK 

mark. 

Sworn and subscribed before me, September 5, 1873. 

JAS. G. LOKG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of 0. Kimmell. 

Gbadiah Kimmell affirms as follows: Jeremiah Rob¬ 
inson placed in my hands accounts amounting to some¬ 
thing over $40 aeainst Byers; went to see Byers at his 
place some four or live times before I succeeded in seeing 
him. When I did see him, he called at my office and 
said he would soon pay the $7.50. I told Robinson of 
this offer, and he made no objection to my taking it. 
When he next called, I told him what I had done,* and 
that the money had been attached in my hands for a bill 




113 


ot costs, ajticl showed him a copy of the attachment which 


had been served upon me by Constable A. J. Thomas, 
who had returned a fi. fa. against Jeremiah Robinson, nola 
bona , tor the same costs, (both papers here shown,) 
dated 25th and 27th November, 1872, respectively. I 
received from Byers $7.50, and the attachment was for 


$84 only $6.75 of which was in my hands after deduct¬ 
ing 10 per cent, commission on the amount collected for 
Robinson. I then advised Robinson that, his rights were 
in no wise prejudiced for bringing his suit for damages. 
He took the papers, and declined to bring suit. 


0. KIMMELL. 


Sworn before me, this 6th day of September, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 

Chairman . 


Testimony of Albert Grant. 

In January, 1872, Irving Archer brought suit against 
Lewis Will and myself, as garnishee, for $14. Judgment 
was rendered by Justice Walter for that amount, with $6 
costs. On the 16th of January, 1873, I paid Walter $20, 
and saw the judgment entered as satisfied in his docket. 
Subsequently, C. A. Kimmell, constable, called at my office, 
as I am, informed, and represented that Walter had made 
a mistake in the costs, and that there was still between 
three and four dollars due. On the 21st of January, he 
called again, and in my absence made a demand upon Mr. 
Fletcher for the amount of these costs. Mr. Fletcher in¬ 
forms me he told Kimmell if he would produce a written 
statement from Walter that there were any unpaid costs, 
he would pay them. This Kimmell declined to do, and 
proceeded to levy upon a gas post valued at $30. I.am 
unable to state what disposition Kimmell made of this 
post. Walter subsequently assured me there were no 
15 



114 


unpaid costs, and that the payment of $20 having settled 
the case in full, Kimmell had no authority to levy upon 
the gas post. 

ALBERT GRANT. 

Sworn and subscribed before me, this 6th day of Sep¬ 
tember, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, Chairman. 


Testimony of Albert Grant. 

Albert Grant, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 
That in the fall and winter of 1871, I employed Lewis 
Will as a stair-builder and L. H. Deetz as a contractor 
for carpenter’s work in connection with the building of 
my houses on East Capitol street. They were paid in 
full as the work progressed ; but I subsequently ascer¬ 
tained that they did not pay their men in full. The men 
therefore brought suit against me before Justice A. E. L. 
Iveese, and ascertained at the trial that they could not 
collect by such process. The following writs were then 
brought against Deetz and Will and myself, as gar¬ 
nishee : 


Benjamin Polglase, case No. 244, vs. L. H. Deetz, debt.$15.00 

William Adams, “ “ 245, “ L. Will, “ 17.50 

James H. Lithel, “ “ 246, “ Deetz, “ 26.25 

H. Lansdale, “ “ 247, “ “ “ 12.50 

Thomas McMahon, “ “ 248, “ “ “ 24.00 

Fletcher Lansdale, “ “ 249, “ “ “ 27.50 

Helma Spates, “ “ 250, “ “ “ 32.50 

George W. Corbett, “ “ 251, “ “ “ 16.87 

Joseph McMahon, “ “ 252, “ “ “ 37.75 

George Lecker, “ “ 255, “ L. Will “ 30.00 


Total. $239 87 


From some cause, I failed to answer the interrogatories 
served upon me, and after judgment had been rendered, I 
called upon Reeso with a view of taking appeals in these 















cases. Subsequently, however, I concluded to pay the men, 
as they had earned the money, although the accounts of 
Deetz and Will were overdrawn. I declined, however, to 
pay the heavj^ bill of costs, and proposed to Keese that I 
should pay the amount of the indebtedness, exclusive of the 
costs. He agreed to this, and notified me that the officer 
was authorized to receipt for the money, and discharge 
the judgments. I notified him when to send the officer 
for the money, and at the appointed time Ti J. Bicksler, 
constable, gave me the accompanying receipts, and the 
money was paid to him: 

Washington, D. (J., May 7, 1872. 

Received of A. Grant one hundred and eighty-two dollars and 
thirty-seven cents, in full of all demands for debt and costs in the 
cases of Benjamin Polglace, No. 244, $15 ; James H. Lithe!, No. 
240, $26.25 ; H. Lansdale, No. 247, $12.50 ; Thomas McMahon, No. 
248, $24 ; Fletcher Lansdale, No. 249, $27.50; Helma Spates, No. 
250, $32.50; George W. Corbett, No. 251, $16.87; Joseph McMa¬ 
hon, No. 252, 37.75; in which judgments were rendered against S. 
H. Deetz by A. E. L. Keese, jr., and against A. Grant, garnishee. 

T. J. BICKSLER, 

Constable. 

Washington, D. C., May 7, 1872. 

Received of A. Grant forty-seven dollars and fifty cents ($47.50) 
in full of all demands for debt and costs in the cases of William 
Adams, No. 245, $17.50; and George Leaker, No. 255, $30; in 
which judgments were rendered against Louis Will by A. E. L. 
Keese, jr., and against A. Grant, garnishee. 

T. J. BICKSLER, 

Constable. 

Bicksler assured me he was authorized to receipt for 
the money, and that this would be in full discharge of 
the debt and costs. Soon after this I had a judgment 
against A. K. Fowler, and when the attachment was 
served upon him, he showed as an offset the judgment 
of William Adams for $22.73 debt and costs. As soon 
as I ascertained these facts I went to Keese’s office, and 
showing him the receipt of Bicksler, demanded that these 


110 


judgments should be entered on his docket ns satisfied. 
This he positively declined to do; and 1 have been in¬ 
formed since this investigation was commenced that a 
portion of these judgments are still outstanding against 
me. 

ALBERT GRANT. 

Sworn and subscribed to, this 6th day of September, 
A. D. 1873. 

JAMES G, LONG, Chairman. 


Testimony of T. J. Bicksler. 

Thomas J. Bicksler, being duly sworn, testifies: That 
he acknowledges the receipt of the money Albert Grant 
swears to having paid him on the 7th of May, 1872, and 
that he settled with each of the plaintiffs in Reese’s office, 
taking their receipts for the several sums, they each al¬ 
lowing his proportion of the costs rather than to await 
the trial of the causes at the court above; and deponent 
paid over to the officer who served the writs and to 
Reese $30, being $15 each. Deponent sent each plaintiff, 
upon settlement, to Reese to sign his docket in full satis¬ 
faction of judgment. 

T. J. BICRSLER. 


Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 6th day of 
September, 1873. 


dAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of B. Chambers. 

In reference to my complaint to you of Constable Rim- 
rnell, I would beg leave to state that I was aware that 
the bill of H. I. Gregory, escp, was to be paid as well as the 
bill of Mulcare, mv laborer, amounting in the aggregate 




117 


to about $110. This will be seen by reference to my first 
statement. 

I did not complain of the fact that my goods were 
taken for my debts, but what I demand, and have not 
yet been satisfied in, is a truthful statement of what 
became of the rest of my money, the $255, proceeds of 
sale of horse and wagon; not that I expect to receive any 
part of the same, but have a right to know how fur it 
relieved me from debt. Mr. S. D. Castleman, who is 
said to have made one of the attachments, asserts that he 
did not receive his money, and that he still holds me his 
debtor. This is the part of the matter to which I must 
call your attention, together with the fact of Kimmell’s 
failure to make the return in time required by the law. 

And this deponent further says: Constable 0. Kirn- 
mell attached proceeds of sales of property in the hands 
of Duncanson, Dowling & Co. to pay a judgment in favor 
of Turner Sappington, who informs me that Kimmell 
refuses to pay him any more than $1.50, although, as 
this deponent is informed, and believes, that said Kimmell 
received from Duncanson, Dowling & Co. at least the 
sum of $21. This deponent requests that Duncanson, 
Dowling & Co. may be summoned to appear before this 
committee to state what disposition was made of said 
proceeds, and what amount they paid over to Constable 
Kimmell. This deponent seems to have lost his property 
by attachments, but his debts do not appear to have been 
paid to the amount of the sale of the property. This 
deponent has since learned that Kimmell went to H. I. 
Gregory when he had attached my horse and wagon, and 
represented to him that he could make his (Gregory’s) 
bill out of Chamber’s property, and agreed to do so for 25 
per cent.; which Gregory told this deponent that he 
gave him for so doing This accounts to deponent’s mind 
for Kimmell’s willingness to relieve the children’s play- 


118 


things in exchange for the authority (that he exacted 
from deponent in writing) to pay Gregory’s bil) out of 
the proceeds of the horse and wagon—property that was 
exempt from execution under the law, except for wages. 

B. CHAMBERS. 


Sworn and subscribed before me, this 8th day of Sep¬ 
tember, 1873. 


JAS. G. LONG, 


Chairman . 


Testimony of < 7 . A. Kimmell. 

C. A. Kimmell, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That on the 6th January, 1873, an execution was placed 
in his hands against the effects of Albert Grant, garnishee 
of Louis Will, for the sum of $16.51 debt and $3 costs, 
together with additional costs; total amounting with com¬ 
missions to $22.82. Subsequently Captain Grant called 
at Justice Walter’s office, and paid to the boy there $20, 
taking his receipt therefor; called several times to see 
* Grant, but did not see him ; was told by Mr. Fletcher, in 
Grant’s office, that Captain Grant had settled the matter 
and taken a receipt. I acknowledged that he had paid 
$20 to the boy, but that there was still $2.82 balance of 
costs due. This he refused to pay, and I levied on a gas 
lamp or post, which sold for $3 at constable sale, leaving 
18 cents due Captain Grant whenever he calls for the 
same. I declined to get a written statement, because I 
had with mea fi. fa. in Justice Walter’s own hand-writing 
showing the amount of the debt and costs, and upon 
which I was willing 1o allow the alleged payment of $20. 

In relation to the matter of B. Chambers, I will only 
say that if he desires any fuller statement than the one 



119 


I made before the committee, I will furnish him all the 
details in my power, if he will call at my office. 

C. A. KIMMELL. 

Sworn before me, this 8th day of September, 1878. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Charles Walter , J. P. 

Charles Walter, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That a suit was brought before me as Justice of the 
Peace, on the 15th day of November, 1872, for $14, by 
Irving W. Archer, against Lewis Will, returnable 
November 16th, and continued at the request of defend¬ 
ant to November 20, when judgment was confessed for 
$14 and $1 costs and interest from date. Execution 
issued on 22d November, returned 26th November, “no 
personal property found on which to levy. 77 December 10, 
1872, judgment of condemnation was rendered against A. 
Grant, as garnishee of Lewis Will, for $14 and $6 costs. 
On the same day Mr. McConnell appeared as attorney for 
Captain Grant, and moved that the judgment be set aside 
as erroneous, on the ground that no interrogatories had 
been previously issued upon the erroneous judgment. On 
the 21st day of December, 1872, interrogatories were 
filed. Judgment of condemnation was entered against A. 
Grant, as garnishee, on the 2d of January, 1873, for $16.51 
and $2 costs and interests. On the 6th of January, 1873, 
execution was issued against A. Grant, as garnishee, for 
$16.51 debt and interest and $3. On the 16th January, 
gave A. Grant a receipt for satisfaction in full of A. 
Grant. The costs in the above suit consists of the follow¬ 
ing items: Summons 25 cents, service for the same 25 
cents, judgment 50 dents, execution against Will 25 cents, 
commission on same 76 cents, return 50 cents, total $2.51; 
which, added to $14, original claim, made the $16.51. 



The charge for the attachment upon the condemnation of 
the money in the hands of the garnishee is $2, serving 
the same $1, making §19.51. My books show that on 
16th January, I received §20 in full satisfaction for said 
judgments and execution. I sent word to Captain Grant 
by C. A. Kimmell, constable, that I had made an error in 
the costs of §1.50 for the interrogatories, and had no 
doubt that either he or Mr. Fletcher would pay it; did not 
authorize him to make any seizure of property to satisfy 
it. I think he saw by the entry on my book that the 
judgment was satisfied. Constable Kimmell made return 
of the execution, satisfied by sale of gas post for §3, on 
10th of September, 1873. 

CHARLES WALTER. 

* 

Sworn before me, September 12, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Albert Grant. 

Albert Grant, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That he called on Justice Walter after Constable Kimmell 
had attached the gas post referred to in my former testi¬ 
mony, and asked him if the amount I had paid was not 
in full for the costs and debt. After looking at his book, 
he replied that it was. He said he had given no authority 
to levy on that post, and that Kimmell had done it onjiis 
own responsibility. On September 8, 1873, after reading 
the testimony of Kimmell, I called again on Justice Wal¬ 
ter to ascertain if any injustice had been done Mr. Kim- 
meli, and found that the books of Justice Walter con¬ 
firmed my former testimony. I then asked if the Justice 
could explain the difference of §2.82 excess charged by 
Kimmell. He said he cmld not, and sent for Kimmell, 
who came with the execution; and on comparing it with 



the docket, we found a difference ol $1.50 on the item of 
‘‘costs.” Kimmell admitted that he had altered the $3 
to $4.50 alter the papers had left Walter’s office, and 
upon that discrepancy he levied upon the gas post. 

ALBERT GRANT. 

Sworn to, September 12, 18-73. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Winfield S. Fletcher. 

Winfield S. Fletcher, being duly sworn, deposes and 
sa3^s : That he was aware of the fact that Lewis Will 
was indebted to Irving Archer $14; and, on the 16th of 
January, 1873, I went with Capt. A. Grant to the office 
of Justice Walter to pay the amount of the judgment 
against A. Grant, garnishee. Justice Walter informed 
us that by his docket the amount was $14 debt and $6 
cost, which was paid by Capt. A. Grant. A receipt in 
full was given for the same by Justice W r alter, who in¬ 
structed the boy to make a proper entry on the docket. 
A few days later, Constable Kimmell notified me that 
there had been a mistake in the amount of costs as 
figured by Walter. I called upon Walter to know if 
there were any additional costs, and he told me that the 
whole judgment and costs had been paid and satisfied, 
and that ended it. Subsequently, on the 21st of January, 
Kimmell called at our office and notified me that there 
was $2.82 costs in the case remaining unpaid. I told 
him that if he would bring me a written statement from 
Walter to that effect, I would pay these costs. He pro¬ 
ceeded to levy upon an ornamented gas post, which cost 
at least $30. I showed him the satisfaction of the judg¬ 
ment in the hand-writing of Walter; but he said he 
cared nothing for it. On the 8th of this month of Sep- 
16 



1 O') 

+J — 


tember, 1873, I went with Capt. A. Grant to Walter’s 
office, and asked to see the papers in the case. Walter 
sent for Kimmell, who brought the papers with him. 
In course of the conversation which followed, Kimmell 
admitted that he (Kimmell) had altered the figures in the 
item of costs, on the back of the execution which he 
presented, from $3 to $4.50. 

WINFIELD S. FLETCHER. 

Sworn before me, September 12, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Bichard J. Clarke. 

Richard J. Clarke, being duly sworn, deposes and 
says: That he was summoned to appear before Justice H. 
Clay Johnson and answer to the claim of one Lurch for a 
bill of merchandise of $100. Deponent appeared before 
Johnson and acknowledged that he owed plaintiff $122. 
For some reason, unknown to this deponent, a jury was 
summoned by Constable 11. R. Maryman in the case; but 
deponent had no opportunity given him to challenge them, 
nor does he understand why a jury was called. When 
deponent proved, both by his own acknowledgment and 
that of the plaintiff, Burch, that his full indebtedness was 
over $100, and he confessed that he owed defendant $122, 
Justice Johnson said the case was beyond his jurisdiction, 
and that he would leave the case for the jury to decide. 
He, the Justice, left the room, and the constable locked 
the jury in. Returning shortly after, the jury rendered a 
verdict for $100 and costs, which the Justice recorded. 
Two of the jurors, named Drane and Jones, were sworn 
as witnesses, and testified in the case. This pretended 
trial occurred on the 17th September. This morning, 
September^!8th, execution was issued upon said judgment 



by Justice Wm. Martin, and an officer proceeded to levy 
on the stock ot goods formerly belonging to this deponent; 
but finding that said stock had been sold by this depo¬ 
nent before the commencement of this suit, the levy was 
not made. Deponent conceives the whole proceeding to 
have been illegal, and instituted for the purpose of making 
cost and trouble to this deponent, who never denied his 
obligation, but had agreed to settle on the 1st of October, 
and had also offered the plaintiff security to that effect. 

RICHARD J. CLARKE. 

Sworn to before me, this 18th day of September, 1873. 

JAS. G. LOKG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Henry Clay Johnson. 

II. C. Johnson, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
The case of T. E. Burch vs. R. J. Clarke was ruled away 
from Justice Martin to this deponent, by affidavit of de¬ 
fendant for change of venue, September 15tli. Same day 
case continued for defendant to Wednesday, 17th. On 
that day issued venire , on the motion of plaintiff, for a 
jury to try the case. The complaint of the plaintiff was 
for $100. Plaintiff produced his books, from which, by 
the evidence of both plaintiff and defendant, it was proven 
that the amount due plaintiff was over $100. Plaintiff 
stated that his credits reduced it to an amount within 
the magistrate’s jurisdiction. Two other witnesses were 
sworn, who proved the bill to have been more than $100, 
but that Mr. Clarke had paid something on account of it; 
do not know that the two latter witnesses were sworn 
members of the jury. If they were, I was imposed upon. 
I charged the jury that if from the evidence they believed 
that the debt was over $100, I had no jurisdiction, and 
the case must be dismissed. I then gave the case to the 



jury and left the room for them to make up the verdict, 
which they rendered in writing, as follows: 

“The jury in the case of T. E; Burch vs. It. J. Clarke find a verdict 
of $100 and costs in favor of plaintilf.” 

James N. Callan, 

W. H. Ferguson, 

T. W. Tansill, 

Henry T. Jones, 

George Bartholomall, 

S. Heller, 

September 17, 1873, 4:30 p. m. 

Judgment was recorded on my docket in accordance 
with the above verdict. Plaintiff called on me the 18th, 
(to-day,) and asked me to issue an attachment or a fi. fa., 
which I emphatically refused, for the reason that I wished 
to afford defendant an opportunity to get out a certiorara 
from the court above. Plaintiff then demanded his judg¬ 
ment, and I gave it to him. Defendant made no effort to 
challenge the jury, and when asked by deponent if he was 
ready to proceed to trial, said that he was willing to sub¬ 
mit the case to the jury. 

H. C. JOHNSON. 

Sworn to before me, this 18th day of September, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


B. Neff, 

R. H. Drane, 

W. H. Hoyle, 
James Laham, 
John W. Morey, 
J. W. Colley. 


Testimony of C. W. Polte. 

4 

C. W. Polte, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That 
during last fall and winter he was a watchman for Mur¬ 
dock & Camp, contractors on Twelfth street, in day time, 
at $1 per day. The night watchman was paid $1.50 per 
day, as the nights were long and cold. Sometime in 
November Mr. Camp told me the night watchman had 
left, and he would give me his place. I told him I would 
take it at the same pay the other man had, $1.50 per day ; 
although I had the asthma badly, so that I could not do 
laboring work, I could watch. Mr. Camp said, “all right; 



I will make it all right with you when payday comes.” 
When pay day came my envelope contained only the dol¬ 
lar per day; told Mr. Camp it was not right; he said it 
was enough for a sick man like me ; told him I would not 
work any more for that price, and threw down the keys. 
Murdock said, “let us have no fuss here; I will make it 
all right with you next pay-day;” and as I went out 
Camp came behind me and handed me the keys. Next 
pay day, two weeks after, the envelope only contained one 
dollar per day, and they refused to pay me more. I then 
quit, and brought suit for $11.50 before Justice Keese, be¬ 
ing for fifty cents per day for twenty-three days. Camp 
had it continued two or three times, and finally, when 
Keese refused to postpone it longer, denied that he ever 
agreed to pay me the $1.50 per day ; so Justice Keese said 
he would throw off'half, and give me judgment for $5.75. 
One constable or another has had this execution since last 
March, and I can find out nothing from Justice Keese or 
anybody else about the money. I am a poor invalid, and 
very much in need of the money. 

C. W. POLTE. 

Sworn to, September 18, 1873. 

JAS. O. LONG, 
Chairman . 


Testimony of Thomas W. Tansill. 

Thomas W. Tansill, being duly sworn, deposes and 
says: That he was summoned as a juror in case of Burch 
vs. Clarke, before Justice Johnson, on the 17th of Septem¬ 
ber. The jury was duly sworn in the presence of Clarke, 
the latter making no objection to the jury. When the 
parties were asked by Justice Johnson if they were ready 
for trial, I heard no objection made by either of them. 
The books showed a debt of $127.50, with a credit of 
$27.50, leaving a balance, which plaintiff* swore was the 
amount due to him, of $100. Justice Johnson charged 



126 


the jury that if they were satisfied that the amount due 
was more than $100, the ease was beyond his jurisdiction, 
and the case must be dismissed. One juror, named Jones, 
testified that he sold the goods and made out the bill. 

T. W. TAYSILL. 

We, the undersigned, corroborate the above statement. 

J. W. COLLEY, 

S. HELLER, 

B. NEFF, M. D. 

Sworn to before me, September 19, 1873. 

H. CLAY JOHYSOY, .7. P. [seal.] 


Testimony of Clarrissct West. 

Clarrissa West, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That a suit was brought sometime ago against her for the 
debt of her deceased husband, amounting to something 
over $14, by one Yott, before Justice Drury, who decided 
that Mrs. West was not responsible for her husband’s 
debts. Her property having been given her by a former 
husband,'was exempt under the law of 1869. Yott, a few 
days ago, not satisfied with this decision, brought suit 
before Justice Clark for the same account. When sum¬ 
moned, deponent told the constable that she was unable 
to go out; that her property was not liable for the debt; 
that Justice Drury had so decided, pn the day of trial 
she was not able to attend. Judgment was taken and ex- 
ecution issued. On Monday or Tuesday of last week 
Constable Clark came to my house and demanded some 
$18.50, I think, for judgment and costs. I refused to 
pay it, and told him my property was not liable for the 
judgment. He said that he was instructed to make it or 
get the money, and he commenced taking down the pic¬ 
tures, and sent a hoy for a furniture car. When the latter 
came, he placed some <3f the property in the wagon, when 



a neighbor offered to loan me the money, and I paid the 
amount rather than to have the trouble and cost of reple¬ 
vying the property. This was no doubt what the con¬ 
stable expected and desired, because he seized upon a val¬ 
uable painting, which was a present to my first husband, 
and which was of little value to any one else but myself, 
while I was very loath to part with it. All my property 
was exempt under the law of 1869, protecting the sepa¬ 
rate property of married women from seizure for the debts 
of the husband. 

her 

CLARRISSA X WEST. 

mark. 

Sworn before me, this 24th day of September, 1874. 

W. E. VERMILLION, 

Chairman pro tern. 


Testimony of Julius E. Goldin. 

Julius R. Goldin, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That on the 10th of September, 1 . 873 , he was sued before 
Justice Iveese, by F. Freund, for the amount of $20 that 
he did not owe. The case was postponed on account of 
the absence of the Justice in Philadelphia; but depo¬ 
nent was not advised of the day to which it was ad¬ 
journed. Justice Plant was attorney for Freund, and took 
judgment against me by default. The first I knew of 
this was the appearance of the constable with his execu¬ 
tion. I showed him a deed of trust covering the prop¬ 
erty. I gave notice of appeal, and neglected to file my 
bond immediately, being kept busy in other matters in 
the Police court, and knowing that I was allowed ten 
days in which to do it. Constable Shanks came to me 
on the 24th (the judgment having been taken on the 19th) 
and said that Plant was pushing him to make the levy; 
that there was $8.50 cost, which he cautioned me not to 
pay to any one else. I told him to wait till the 1st of 



128 


the month, and I would pay the whole thing and sue 
Freund. He said he would wait. This morning (25th) 
he came to my store and proceeded to levy on about $200 
worth of pictures to satisfy this judgment of $20 and 
cost. When I had showed a deed of trust covering that 
property, he said he did not give a damn for the deed of 
trust; let the holder of the deed come and replevin the 
property. Retook the pictures away to an auction store. 
I went to Justice Keese and gave my bond for appeal, 
and paid the costs, which were only $2.50, and received 
an order for the constable to return my property. Upon 
presenting the order, Shanks declined to return the prop¬ 
erty. I told him that I would complain of his conduct 
to the committee. He said he did not care for the com¬ 
mittee, and, if I did not mind, he would go a little 
beyond his duties as an officer. He has not yet returned 
my pictures. 

JULIUS R. GOLDIH. 

Sworn before me, this ,25th day of September, 1873. 

JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of Wm. C. Johnson. 

Wm. C. Johnson, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That on the 29th of March, 1872, he was summoned by St. 
Clair Davis to appear before Justice J. T. C. Clark, on the 
1st of April, to answer to a complaint of $26 house rent. 
On trial day the deponent put in his bill for services and 
goods in bar, amounting to $95 ; and also proved by 
testimony of deponent’s wife that she had paid said 
Davis $5 on account of rent. Justice Clark, after hearing 
the testimony of Davis in his own behalf and of this 
deponent and his wife in behalf of this deponent, gave 
judgment against this deponent for $11 and $1.65 cost, 
allowing this deponent only $10 for four months’ services 





129 


and $15 for goods furnished for their use. Deponent 
served Davis, who kept a hotel on K street, between 17th 
and 18th streets, two months as bar-keeper, for which 
he charged $25 per month, $50; and two months as 
porter and runner to the ears, for which he charged $15 per 
month, $30; and goods to the amount of about $15 ; in 
all $95. Davis did not deny that I performed the service, 
but said that he never agreed to pay me for it. Depo¬ 
nent paid the judgment of $12.65, but feels that the 
greatest injustice has been done him by Justice Clark. 

' WM. C. JOHNSON. 


Sworn and subscribed before me, this 26th of Septem¬ 
ber, 1873. 


JAS. G. LONG, 
Chairman. 


Testimony of H. C. Gill. 

In the past few years I have been somewhat embarrassed 
financially through designing, unscrupulous and dishonest 
partners, together with sickness and other misfortunes, 
preventing me from paying all my obligations, and two 
or three of the most unreasonable creditors pushed me 
with suit, and finally, by default, with judgments. I 
have, however, paid all my debts with the exception of a 
few of those that were unreasonable enough to take the 
law to compel me. 

Some of these judgments have been put into the hands 
of, or, I have reason to believe, been bought up by either 
or both Obediah Kimmell and Charles A. Kiinmell, father 
and son, constables. 

The latter made a seizure of some articles that did not 
belong to me in 1870, at a time when I was unable to pro¬ 
tect myself—articles, at the regular prices, that would 

17 



130 


amount to thirty or forty dollars, for which I am in¬ 
formed he returned or accounted for but about fourteen 
dollars, a fair specimen of the proportion generally real¬ 
ized. This, of course, did not near satisfy the judgment. 

The same person, Charles A. Kimmell, on or about the 
21st of June last, watched me out of my house, and push¬ 
ing himself, in company with an assistant, passed a child 
of a lady rooming in the house that went to the door, 
and my servant, making her appearance, demanded what 
he wanted ; he said he came there to seize goods or chat¬ 
tels belonging to me. She told him I had gone to the 
office and he had better go and see me. He replied, he 
did’nt want to see me, but demanded that the doors of 
the rooms be opened. She told him she did not have the 
keys ; that my family was absent, and the rooms were 
locked up, when he informed her he would force the doors, 
and, suiting the action to the word, burst the door open, 
and commenced ransacking the rooms, trying false keys 
into all the locks of bureaus, wardrobes and bookcase, 
none of which, however, happened to fit. He finally car¬ 
ried off* two trunks and one guitar, the trunks containing 
principally the clothing of my recently deceased wife, and 
a lot of private papers and letters, in fact all articles held 
sacred by myself and children, of which he was informed 
at the time, but only added insult to injury. 

This seizure was made on a judgment obtained before 
Squire Walter on a note given bv a former partner of 
mine in the name of the firm, for a bill contracted by a 
firm he was previously a partner of, and in which I had 
no interest. 

A friend of mine, hearing of this circumstance, volun¬ 
tarily went to the said Kimmell and paid him the amount 
of the judgment and costs, (costs only $6 on a judgment 
of $20); after which, and when he was about to remove 
them, Obediah Kimmell, constable in the same office, and 


131 


father of the other Kimmell, steps in and attached the 
same articles under a judgment obtained before Squire 
Hauptman for one month’s rent of rooms, occupied under 
specific agreement for but ten days, such judgment ren¬ 
dered by him before the month claimed for had more 
than half transpired. Under this seizure I replevied the 
articles, as guardian under appointment from the court, 
they being left to my children by my recently deceased 
wife. 

As soon as the marshal turned over the articles as re¬ 
plevied, or in fact before I had gotten possession, I was 
informed by the first named Charles A. Kimmell that the 
same articles were seized by him to satisfy the first named 
judgment, which had been partially paid by the first seizure 
named, in 1870. The expense of this replevin was only 
§22.95. 

After this third seizure, the said Charles A. Kimmell 
voluntarily returned to me a lot of clothing and some 
letters and private papers; but I am of the opinion that 
many articles are unaccounted tor, which time will de¬ 
velop. 

He retained the trunks and some of the contents, which 
he sold on the 19th ultimo, some of which articles were 
sold for a mere tribe, compared with their cost; he, how¬ 
ever, satisfied the judgment before disposing of all the 
goods, but retained the other articles by, as he announced, 
a postponement of the sale. 

On the 29th ultimo, Obediah Kimmell served a notice 
of another seizure of some of the articles left over from 
the sale by Charles A. Kimmell for a judgment rendered 
by Squire Keese against me without a trial, in the face of 
an affidavit for change of venue, the same case having 
been dismissed by Justice J. T. C. Clark, being a suit for 
pay for work admitted not to be fully performed. 

Strange to say, all these writs of fi. fa., or executions,. 


132 



were isstfed by Charles Walter, and not by the justices 
who gave judgment, looking as though he and the said 
Kimmells were in partnership. 

I can fully prove all the statements herein made, and I 
expect to follow up the matter with all legal proceedings 
that the law will allow. 

No one’s house or effects are safe while such men are 
allowed to render judgments without fair trial, and to 
issue executions to unscrupulous and dishonest constables 
to break open people’s houses in their absence, which I 
know they watch for, and seize any person’s property, 
whether exempt or not. 

H. C. GILL. 


Subscribed and sworn belore me this 29th day of Octo¬ 
ber, 1873. 

G. P. HOPKINS, 

Notary Public. 


Testimony of A. E. L. Keese , J. P. 

I see by the report of the local columns that a certain 
Charles W. Potts made complaint against me before your 
honorable body. This again shows to me how much re¬ 
liance should be placed in the general complaints made 
before you. 

This man Potts came to my office on the 16th day of 
December, 1872, and complained of being sick and poor 
and that he had a just claim against the firm of Kemp 
k Murdock. I told him if he had a just claim, he not be¬ 
ing able to pay for a summons, that should not prevent 
him from proceeding in the matter. I issued a summons 
against the firm, and at the trial the evidence was equal. 
I, therefore, considering his sickly condition, that he was 
not worth quite as much as a well and hearty man, gave 
him judgment for one half. February 10, 1873, a fi fa is- 



133 


« 


sued, which was returned, “no property found on which 
to make the within claim;” he called again, and on the 
28th day ot August I isssued a second^’ fa, which was re¬ 
turned same as the first. Now, all this was done without 
any cost or expense to him, and I suppose because the 
debt can t be made out of the defendants, he has a just 
cause to complain against me for not paying him the 
amount out of my own pocket and pay the officer his costs. 

This is just as strong a case against me as all the rest 
that have been before your honorable committee. 

Respectfully, 

A. E. L. KEESE, J. P. 

Washington, September 22, 1873. 


Testimony of Luther (f. Dawson. 

Luther G. Lawson, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That he is clerk and acting justice of the Police Court; 
has been clerk since October, 1871; have occasion to look 
over a great many of the warrants issued by the justices 
of the peace for the arrests of persons accused of crimes 
and misdemeanors—about one-half of them are not. pros. 
They are all badly and loosely expressed, and many of them 
contain more than one accusation. The following speci¬ 
mens indicate the character of a few of those not. pros., 
with the names of the justices who issued them: 

(No. 1118.) June 12, 1873. 

Upon oath of John Kelly, who charges Joseph Baker with having, on 
the 12th day of June,1873 within the County and District aforesaid, with 
having threatened to do the said John Kelly bodily injury, growing 
out of the killing of Reuben Baker’s dog by order of Hon. Judge of 
Police Court. 

JENKIN THOMAS. 

N. P.: C. T. Closs, 


(No. 1590.) July 27, 1873. 

Oath of George Washington charges John Belt and one Clark with 
having, on the 27th day of July, 1873, within the County and District 



134 


aforesaid, assaulted and threatened with fists and dirk-knife, complain, 
with profane language, and otherwise behaved very disorderly. 

W. P. O. S. B. WALL, J ; P. 


June 30, 1873. 

On oath of Jarvis Robinson, who charges Mrs. Havener with having 
committed an assault upon his person, and threatened to do him bodily 
harm, and cursed and abused him, using profane and indecent lan¬ 
guage, which could be heard on the public streets. 

B. W. FERGUSON. 

AT. P.: C. T. Closs, 

(No. 1,584.) July 25, 1873. 

On oath of James L. Carberry, who charges Cordelia Washington 
with having, on the 22d day of July, 1873, within the County and Dis¬ 
trict aforesaid, committed an assault on Miss Henrietta Reid, using 
improper language towards her, and making threats. Arrest, &c. 

M. Y. BUCKEY, J. P. 

N. P .: W. H. Evans, 


September 8, 1873. 

On oath of Col. George A. Armes, who charges James Shields and 
Brown Snowden with having, on the 3d of September, maliciously and 
wilfully placing stones against the stable door, and preventing the use 
thereof, and for the purpose of creating a disturbance 

A. E. L KEESE. 

N. P.: C. T. Closs, 


(No. 1,395.) July 8, 1873. 

On oath of Patrick Slinay, charges one Mary Fleming did, on the 
8th day of July, in the District of Columbia, then and there, comit 
an assault and batterey on the body of Patrick Slinay. Arrest and 
take before Police Court. 

SIMON JOSEPH, J. P. 

Information. 

That one Mary Fleming did, on the 8tli day of July, within the Dis¬ 
trict of Columbia, then and there throw at and upon him the contents 
of a pail filled with water, thereby immersing and wetting his clothing 
and body. 

(No. 1,270.) June 30, 1873. 

Oath of J. H. Smith, who charges one William T. Saunders with 
having, on the 28th day of June, 1873, within the County aforesaid 


135 


assaulted in street car with fist, and right arm drawn, and threatened 
to strike and beat complainant; the said William T. Saunders also 
behaved in a very disorderly manner, using profane and indecent lan¬ 
guage, to the annoyance of passengers in said street car. 

O. S. B. WALL, J. P. 

W. P.: C. T. Closs, 

(No. —) May 4, 1873. 

William Brown, on oath, charges Thomas Hall with having, on the 
3d of May, 1873, within the County and District aforesaid, forcibly 
kept possession of, and did maliciously break, destroy, and throw away 
the dwelling-house door key of the complainant, to the great annoy¬ 
ance of the said complainant and his family, and in violation of act of 
Congress, &c. 

N P. O. S. B. WALL, J. P. 

It is our practice in the Police Court to inquire into the 
merits of the case, and if no ground exists for arrest, the 
warrant is refused. It is often the case that the aggrieved 
party then threatens to go to the justice of the peace to 
get a warrant. Almost daily we receive warrants from 
justices, of the most laughable nature, on account of the 
illiterate and bungling manner of their composition. If 
not nolle prossed,they are utterly groundless. The Police 
Court issues warrants for the arrest of persons upon crim¬ 
inal charges, without fee. 


Testimony of Okas*. T Closs. 

Chas. T. Closs, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
That he is Assistant District Attorney, and has been so, 
in charge of the Police Court, more than three years; have 
no knowledge of the competency of justices, in their civi] 
business, whatever. I should say that at least one half of 
the warrants issued by them for criminal offences, are nol. 
prossed ; many others are dismissed, and I should say that 
not more than one-third of them hold good. They are usual¬ 
ly issued because they are asked for on certain accusations, 



138 


Joseph, Simon, (Benj. M. Plumb and Thos. S. Donoho,) 
August 1, 1872. 

Johnson, Henry Clay, (John Johnson and Sarah C. 
Johnson,) August 2,1872. 

Klopfer, E. J., (John H. Johnson and Wm. Martin,^ 
September 20, 1871. 

Keese, A. E. L., (August Koch and Philip May,) Sep¬ 
tember 20, 1871. 

Kelly, M. E.,(A. P. Pardon and Joseph Williams,) Feb¬ 
ruary 24, 1878. 

Lazenby, Thomas J., (Richard B. Lloyd, Henry Him- 
berand T. A. Lazenby,) October 2, 1871. 

Lawrenson, James, (Margaret Ann Hyatt and George 
H. Miller,) March 18, 1872. 

Mills, Samuel C., (Asbury Lloyd and Andrew Stewart,) 
March 25, 1872. 

Moulton, H. B., (George Derwan and H. Z. Wells,) No¬ 
vember 1, 1872. 

Martin, William, (Wm. Riley and Benjamin E. Mor- 
sell,) February 28, 1873. 

Nixon, R. B., (John T. Mitchell and John T. Given,) 
January 27, 1872. 

Plant, Joseph T. K., (J. William Plant and Michael 
Duffy,) September 16, 1871. 

Schmidt, E. L., (Henry Sieders and Ed. Dewlin,)May 27, 
1872. 

Shea, Thomas J., (Joseph Platz and A. Campbell, April 
15, 1873. 

Sampson, John P., (Wiley F. White, St. Clair Davis 
and Herbert Harris,) June 10,1873. 

Tait, James A., (Wm. Dickson and Peter F. Bacon) 
September 16, 1871. 

Tindall, Wm., (J. V. W. Vandenburg and Geo. F. 
Gulick,) September 18, 1871. 

Thomas, Jenkin, (James A. Riley and Wm. A. Cun¬ 
ningham,) September 25, 1871. 


Thompson, Win., (John E. Thompson and Fred. Bates,) 
May 4, 1872. 

Taylor, Anson S., (Myrick H. Doolittle and Geo. W. 
Emerson,) April 22, 1873. 

Walter, Chas., (Fred. A. Boswell and Francis B. Mohun,) 
September 18, 1871. 

Wall, 0. S. B., (John Buker and Milton M. Holland,) 
January 27, 1872. 

Webster, Charles P., (D. L. Morrison and John V. 
Bryan,) November 26, 1872. 

Weaver, E. C., (Geo. Mason and John R. Condon,) Feb¬ 
ruary 3,1873. 


CONSTABLES. 

The following is a list of constables in commission Au' 
gust 1, 1873, in the District of Columbia, to continue two 
years from date of tiling of last bond, with their sureties: 

Allen, Aquilla R., (Thos. B. Entwisle and Jas. G. Long,) 
June 30, 1873. 

Bicksler, Thos. J., (Julius Fauth, R. B. Hughes, and 
Jacob Veihmeyer,) March 21, 1872. 

Caywood, Aaron S., (H. Koppel, C. R. Sherman, C. H. 
White and Wm. II. Tucker,) April 23, 1873. 

Clark, John D., jr., (Johh D. Clark and George Savage,) 
June 3, 1873. 

Dale, John R., (Wm. W. Kirby and Louis D. Means,) 
June 30, 1873. 

Dona her, H. M. C., (Pat. Cullinane and J. F. Nolan,) 
October 19,1871. 

Drury, C. W., (Terence Drury and George F. Gulick,) 
February 25, 1873. 

Edwards, Jas., (Wm. Dickson and S. A. IL McKim,) 
October 21, 1871. 



142 


SCHEDULE OF COSTS AND FEES. 

The following schedule of costs and fees, legally charge¬ 
able by justices and constables, has been arranged and 
fixed by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, 
as required by act of Congress, approved February 22,1867: 

Summons to commence suit.$0 25 

Subpoena for witness.•. 25 

Each additional witness. 5 

Entering judgment after trial. 50 

Entering judgment by default.’.. 25 

Entering judgment by confession. 25 

Administering oath at trial. 5 

Issuing fi. fa. venditioni ex., ac. fi, each. 25 

Taking supersedeas bond.. 25 

Protest of account. 15 

Commitment or release from jail. 25 

Warrant of attachment and all affidavits for same in each case 75 

Warrant for contempt. 25 

Taking appeal bond and certifying proceedings on appeal. 1 00 

For services not specified otherwise on the trial of any case of 

landlord and tenant, under act of July 4, 1864 . 2 00 

Issuing attachment and taking affidavits in support of same, 

under the act of February 22, 1867 . 75 

Constables may charge fees and commissions, as follows: 

For serving any summons, except in case of landlord and tenant $0 25 

Administering oath or affidavit to appraisers, in each case. 25 

Serving summons in case of landlord and tenant, or in trespass 50 

Serving attachment for contempt. 50 

For collecting and paying over on execution, whether sale has 
been made or otherwise, a commission of five per cent. 

Arresting a criminal under commitment and committing him to 
jail, in each case. 50 




















T1STTD1£3Z:. 

WITNESSES AND CASES. 


Names. 

Abrahams, Samuel. .. 

Anderson, L. B. 

Rarrett, Elizabeth 

Boswell, F. A. 

Burrill, Sam . 

Burrill, Hannah. 

Baum, Louis. 

Bieksler, T. J.. 

Bancroft, Frank L... 

Behrens, Louis. 

Bergling, Henry. 

Barber, Geo. N. 

Bigelow, Otis. 

Boss, Wm. A. 

Bell, Philip A.. 

Berkley, Daniel P. 

Berger, Hermine. 

Clayton, R. M. 

Chase, W. H. 

Chambers, B. 

Clark, J. T. C. 

Closs, Frank P. 

Closs, Chas. T. 

Caro, Solomon. 

Clarke, R. J. 

Colley, J. W. 

Cahill, D. E. 

Corey, J. Weed. 

Chesley, Edward. 

Cross, Rev. Isaac. .. . 
Constables, List of.... 
Costs, Schedule of. ... 

Dawson, L. G. 

Dennis Jonathan. 

Deinhardt, John. 

Davidson, N. 

Doherty, E P. 

Dorr, August. 

Davis, D. W. 

Donalier, H. M. C.•••■ 

Edwards, James.. 

Emmart, Lloyd YV .... 

Fletcher, W. S. 

Gatchel, T. F. 

Gibbons, Geo. T. 

Gordon, Jos. T. 

Grant, Albert. 

Grant, Albert. 

Goldin, Julius R. 


Gases. 


Page. 


.A. J. Thomas. 27 

-A. M. Sprague and J. T. Gordon. 50 

.B. \\ r . Ferguson.*. 15 


.H. R. Maryman. 27, 5 

.A. E. L. Keese. 13 

.L. I O’Neal. 13 

.J. T. K. Plant. 110 

.A. E. L. Keese, Ac. . 98, 105, 109, 116 

.Henry Lacey. 31 

.A. E. L. Keese. 52 

.William Thompson. 67 

.R. V. Hughes. C. A. Kimmell.... 68 

.H. L. Maryman. 75 

.Jos. T. K. Plant. 87 

.E. J. Ivlopfer. 89 

.A. E. L. Keese. 92 

.T. J. Bieksler. 104 

.A. E. L. Keese. 93 

.C. A. Kimmell. 99 

.O. and C A. Kimmell. 116, 70 

.J. T. C. Clark. 64, 79 

.J. T. C. Clark. 82 

.General. 135 

.J. T. K. Plant. 88 

.H C. .Johnson. 122 

.H. C. Johnson. 126 

.A E. L. Keese. 2 

.H. B. Moulton. 11 

.General. 14 

.\Y r illiam Martin. 23 

. 139 

. 142 

.General. 133 

.J. I\ K. Plant. 16 

.J.T. K. Plant.•. 18 

.C. Walter, O. and C. A. Kimmell 20 

.O Kimmell. 21 

.R V. Hughes. 29 

.... John D Clark. 55 

.H B. Moulton . 97 

.James Edwards. 106 

.... A. E L. Keese. 10 

.C. A. Kimmell. 121 

.A. E. L. Keese. 91 

.Chas. S. Shreve. 66 

.Jos. T. Gordon. 50 

. _C. A- Kimmell. 120, 113 

.A. E. L. Keese. 114 


.A. E. L. Keese and B. F. Shanks 127 















































































INDEX. 


II 


Names. Cases. Page. 

Gill H. C...O. and C. A Kimmell. 129 

Geogliegan. H. P.Jas. Edwards. 1()4 

C. 


Heller, S. H. 

Heard, M. S. V.O. and C. A. Kimmell 

Hughes, R. V.C. A. Kimmell 

Huntress, Samuel.A. 

Hayes ..«* .............. hi. 

Jenifer, Jas. A.. ....»A. 

Johnson, Rohert .............. J. 


Johnson. 126 

30 

79 

E. L. Keese. 90 

B. Moulton. 97 

E. L. Keese. . 101 

T. C. Clark. 77 


Johnson, H. Clay .H. C. Johnson. 236 

Johnson, Wm.C.J. T. C. Clark. 128 

Justices of the Peace, List of. 13 

Keese, A. E. L.A. E. L. Keese. 12, 946 

Kimmell, C. A.C. A. Kimmell. 118, 107 

Kimmell, O.C. Walter and O. Kimmell- 112, 77 

Kelley, Jno. F. R. V. Hughes. 80 

Lulley, M.William Thompson.. 58 

Lee, Augusta.J. F. Tait. 28 

Lacey, Henry.L I. O'Neal. 84, 38 

Lester, John.Simon Joseph. 71 

McFarland, S.H. R, Mary man. 4 

Minor, Mary. ReIsaac Cross. 22 

Maryman, H R. 


A. M. Sprague. 


II R. Maryman. 

. 72 

A. E. L. Keese. 


H. C. Johnson. 


A. E. L. Keese. 


B. !>. Klopfer. 


A. M. Sprague. 


John D. Clark. 



McLellan, R. J. 

Neff, P>. 

Polte, C. W.... 

Pipenbring, Ed. 

Price, John T .. 

Poppars, Leon.. 

Robinson, Jere. .O. Kimmell.. Ill 

Reynolds, Jno. T.T. J. Bicksler. 29 


Raeburn, Jno. S. 


Edgar H. Bates. 57 

Smith, Thornton.H. M. C. Donaher. 96 

Seitz, Geo.A. S. Cay wood. 101 

Sappington, Turner.C. A. Kimmell. 102 

Smackem, Mary.James A. Tait. 28 

Suackem, Jane.James A. Tait. 29 

Solomons, Theresa.L. I. (PNeal. 34 

Sprague, A. M.J. T. Gordon. 47 

Smith Rufus.Edgar H. Bates. 56 

Slireve. 62 

L. Keese. 1 

Tait. 19 

Johnson. 125 

Shreve. 60 

K. Plant. 85 


S h reve, I 11 as. S...............C. S. 

Smith, W illiam.A. E 

Shea, Cornelius.J. A. 

Tansill, T. W.H. C 

Thompson, Wm.C. S. 

Vermilya, J. II.J. T. 

Washington, Sarah.Josh, Parker. 65 

Waller, Chas. C. A. Kimmell. 119 

Williams, W in.A, E. L. Keese. 6 

W illiams, Fied. II.A. E. L. Keese. 38 

W est, Clarrissa.J. D. Clark. 126 

Wunderly, J. B.J. T. K. Plant. 88 

Williams, A. B.. .J. T. G. Cleric. 83 


















































































































